COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a framework for energy efficiency labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: European standard, consumer information, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental impact, environmental protection, household electrical appliance, labelling

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.7.2015  
SWD(2015) 139 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a 
framework for energy efficiency labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU 

{COM(2015) 341 final} 
{SWD(2015) 140 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

Executive Summary Sheet ........................................................................................... 4 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 7 

Impact Assessment Steering Group ............................................................................. 7 

Impact Assessment Board ............................................................................................ 7 

Use of Expertise and Consultation of interested parties .............................................. 8 

3.3.1.  External expertise......................................................................................................... 8 

3.3.2.  Consultation of interested parties................................................................................. 8 

4. 

Review of the current policy and problem definition .................................................. 9 

4.1. 

The problem ................................................................................................................. 9 

4.1.1.  The basic problem ........................................................................................................ 9 

4.1.2.  The current problem..................................................................................................... 9 

4.1.3.  Relationship with other energy efficiency and climate policies ................................ 11 

4.2. 

Evaluation of the current policy framework .............................................................. 12 

4.2.1.  Scope of the evaluation .............................................................................................. 12 

4.2.2.  Achievements of the legislative framework............................................................... 13 

4.2.3.  Problems with the current legislation and implementation........................................ 18 

4.3. 

The baseline: How will the problem evolve?............................................................. 23 

4.4.  Who is affected and how? .......................................................................................... 25 

4.5. 

Justification of EU action........................................................................................... 26 

5. 

6. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 27 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 28 

6.1. 

Measures to address the problems.............................................................................. 28 

6.1.1.  Measures to address problems related to Energy Labelling....................................... 28 

6.1.2.  Measures to address problems related to both Energy Labelling and Ecodesign ...... 31 

6.1.3.  Measures to address problems related to (predominantly) Ecodesign....................... 36 

2 

 
 
 
6.2. 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 38 

6.2.1.  Option 0: no changes, baseline................................................................................... 38 

6.2.2.  Option 1: Improvements within the existing regulatory framework.......................... 39 

6.2.3.  Option 1+: Option 1 combined with some improvements in the legal framework, 

notably for energy labelling ....................................................................................... 39 

6.2.4.  Option 2: Significant reform of both ecodesign and energy labelling ....................... 40 

6.2.5.  Option 3: Comprehensive reform of ecodesign and energy labelling extending the 

scope to non-energy related products and to centralise market surveillance ............. 41 

6.2.6.  Suboption to Options 1+, 2 and 3: merge ecodesign and energy labelling into one 

legal instrument.......................................................................................................... 42 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 43 

Approach .................................................................................................................... 43 

Impacts of options ...................................................................................................... 45 

7.2.1.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 45 

7.2.2.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 49 

7.2.3.  Social impact.............................................................................................................. 54 

7.2.4. 

Impacts of merging ecodesign and energy labelling.................................................. 56 

8. 

9. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 58 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 63 

Annex 1 – Use of expertise and consultation of interested parties .......................................... 64 

Annex 2 – Detailed presentation of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directive and their 

implementation........................................................................................................... 90 

Annex 3 – Analysis of market surveillance by member states ................................................ 97 

Annex 4 – The 2012 review of the Ecodesign Directive ....................................................... 100 

Annex 5 – Description of the model and modelling assumptions.......................................... 102 

Annex 6 – The baseline – product sectors and consumer expenditure .................................. 106 

Annex 7 – Product registration database: practical details .................................................... 109 

Annex 8 – Transition between different labels – practical details ......................................... 110 

Annex 9 – Administrative burden calculation........................................................................ 112 

Annex 10 – Ambition level of measures................................................................................ 118 

3 

 
 
1. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET 

Impact assessment on Review of the Energy Labelling Directive and the Ecodesign Directive   

Why? What is the problem being addressed? Maximum 11 lines 

A. Need for action 

The  basic  problem  that  products  can  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  environment  depending  on  how  they  are 
made, used and disposed is addressed by the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives. However, problems 
have arisen in the implementation of the Directives. Most products are now in the top classes of the energy label 
making  it  more  difficult  for  consumers  to  distinguish  between  models.  Moreover,  the  "A+",  "A++"  and  "A+++" 
classes introduced during the previous revision of the Energy Labelling Directive have shown to be less effective 
in persuading consumers to buy more efficient products than the A to G scale. Further, there is non-compliance 
with ecodesign and labelling requirements leading to a loss of about 10% of envisaged energy savings, in part 
related  to  weak  enforcement  by  national  market  surveillance  authorities.  Evaluation  also  revealed  further 
problems with the current policy framework and implementation. These problems do not only affects the potential 
energy and environmental savings targeted by the policy, but also affect consumers as their energy bills are not 
reduced by as much as is envisaged. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve? Maximum 8 lines 

The  main  objective  is  to  reduce  energy  consumption  (and  associated  energy  bills)  and  other  significant 
environmental  impacts  of  products  by  ensuring  consumers  are  informed  in  a  relevant  and  easy-to-understand 
way and allowing industry to transform environmental challenges into economic opportunities. In terms of energy 
savings  the  current  10%  loss  of  savings  due  to  non-compliance  is  a  specific  target,  but  also  potential  further 
savings through other improvements are to be explored. In addition, a main objective is to provide a simplified 
policy framework that is apt for purpose and robust to future developments. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level? Maximum 7 lines  

The  objective  of  reducing  negative  environmental  impacts  of  products,  in  particular  energy  use,  cannot  be 
sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States,  because  this  would  lead  to  divergent  national  provisions  and 
procedures  (while  having  similar  objectives)  that  would  generate  undue  costs  for  industry  (and  eventually 
consumers) and constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU. Acting at the EU level is the 
only  way  to  ensure  that  requirements  and  labels  for  products  placed  on  the  market  are  equal  in  all  Member 
States,  thereby  ensuring  the  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market  underpinned  by  Article  26  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines  

One non-legislative option and three legislative options representing varying degrees of the extent of reform of 
the Directives have been formulated. The non-legislative option ("1") includes improvements within the existing 
regulatory framework. The first legislative option ("1+") combines the non-legislative measures with changes to 
the Energy Labelling Directive to address the layout of the label and requiring registration prior to placing labels 
on the market. The second legislative option ("2") adds to the first one also registration of products covered by 
ecodesign and requires product to be third-party tested (instead of in-house). The third legislative option ("3") is 
a  complete  overhaul  of  the  framework  extending  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  all  products,  not  just  energy-
related  products;  in  order  to  better  address  non-energy  environmental  impacts.  For  the  legislative  options 
separate  sub-options  are  defined  concerning  the  layout  of  the  label,  with  energy  efficiency  scale  ratings  of 
respectively A+++ to D (baseline), A-G, 0-100 and 9-3. The preferred option is option 1+ combined with the sub-
option  of  the  A-G  scale  for  the  label.  This  option  achieves  significantly  better  impacts  than  Options  0  and  1. 
While options 2 and 3 achieve even better results, they are questionable with regard to international obligations 
and for option 3 also for the principle of proportionality. The A-G label, shows the best results and its additional 
administrative costs are more than offset by its superior effect on consumers related monetary benefits. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Who supports which option? Maximum 7 lines  

Option 1 has little support from stakeholders, while Option 1+ has significant support from stakeholders: the vast 
majority is of the view that the Energy Labelling Directive needs to be changed to achieve energy savings closer 
to the full economic technical potential. Option 2, revising also the Ecodesign Directive, is supported by a smaller 
share of stakeholders. In particular industry interest groups are not convinced about the need for change of the 
Ecodesign Directive. Green NGOs support option 3. The A+++ to D and the 9-3 label do not have much support 
from stakeholders. The vast majority supports an A-G label, though not all manufacturers and retailers do. The 
0-100 label is supported by some industry interest groups. 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines             

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

Approximate yearly impact, 2030: 

Energy savings: 552 TWh primary energy 

Consumer savings € 10-30 billion 

Additional commercial revenue € 34 billion 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                 

Administrative and compliance costs are approximately: 

€ 7-12 million per year for manufacturers 

€ 3-4 million per year for dealers 

€ 3 million per year for the Commission 

Given  that  compliance  is  mandatory,  manufacturers  and  dealers  should  be  able  to  pass  these  costs  on  to 
consumers,  for  whom  they  would  be  more  than  offset  against  their  monetary  benefits.  There  are  no  other 
negative impacts. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Maximum 8 lines 

The positive impact on revenues affects larger businesses and SMEs and micro sized enterprises in the same 
way. A different regime for micros/SMEs cannot be justified. All retailers should be subject to the same rules as 
energy labels are only useful for consumers if all products are labelled in all retail outlets. There are few SMEs 
manufacturers and no micros. The same rules should apply to all to ensure fair competition in the single market.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? Maximum 4 lines 

There are no additional impacts on national budgets/administrations. 

Will there be other significant impacts? Max 6 lines  

In case of revision of Energy Labelling and/or Ecodesign, a revision from Directive to Regulation and removing 
overlap with the Market Surveillance Regulation would lead to simplification. 

When will the policy be reviewed? Maximum 4 lines  

A review clause 5-10 years after adoption would be included. 

D. Follow up 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
2. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Energy  Labelling  Directive1  requires  the  Commission  to  review  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive and its delegated acts by 31 December 2014. 

The  Ecodesign  Directive2  required  the  Commission  to  review  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive and its implementing measures by 2012. That review3 concluded that no immediate 
revision was necessary, but that the Directive could be reviewed again along with the review 
of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive,  since  the  effects  of  ecodesign  implementing  regulations 
and energy labelling delegated regulations applicable to the same energy-related products are 
often linked and complementary. 

This impact assessment comprises the outcome of the review of the Energy Labelling Directive 
and  the  Ecodesign Directive.  It  focusses  on  the framework  Directives  and not  on  the  individual 
implementing  regulations  or  any  new  energy-related  products  that  may  in  future  be  addressed 
under this framework through the Ecodesign Working Plan. Chapter 3 summarises the procedural 
issues  and  the  consultation  of  interested  parties.  Chapter  4  sets  out  the  problem  definition,  the 
conclusions  of  the  evaluation  of  existing  policy,  and  the  outstanding  problems  and  their 
underlying  drivers.  Chapter  5  describes  the  policy  objectives.  Chapters  6,  7  and  8  present  the 
options,  impact  analysis,  and  comparison  of  options,  respectively.  Monitoring  and  evaluation 
issues are considered in Chapter 9. 

This  impact  assessment  supports  a  new  legislative  proposal  on  Energy  Labelling.  It  does  not 
support a revision of the Ecodesign Directive.  

Figure 1: The energy label for washing machines 

1 
2 
3 

Directive 2010/30/EU, OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 1 
Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10 
COM(2012) 765 final 

6 

 
 
                                                 
7 

 
3. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

3.1. 

Impact Assessment Steering Group 

Lead DGs: DG Energy, DG Enterprise and Industry 

Agenda planning /WP reference: 2013/ENER+/036 

Impact  assessment  steering  group  (IASG):  The  impact  assessment  work  was  followed  by  the 
Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISG)  on  energy  efficiency  which  met  3  times  in  February  -
November  2014.  The  Steering  Group  consisted  of:  DG  Agriculture,  DG  Budget,  DG  Climate 
Action,  DG  Competition,  DG  Connect,  DG  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,  DG  Employment, 
Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion,  DG  Environment,  Eurostat,  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and 
Medium-sized  Enterprises,  DG  Health  and  Consumers,  Infrastructure  and  logistics  in  Brussels, 
DG Internal Market and Services, the Joint Research Centre, DG Justice, the Legal Service, DG 
Mobility  and  Transport,  DG  Regional  Policy,  DG  Research  and  Innovation,  the  Secretariat 
General, DG Taxation and Customs Union, and DG Trade. 

3.2. 

Impact Assessment Board 

The  Impact  Assessment  Board  of  the  European  Commission  assessed  a  draft  version  of  the 
present  impact  assessment  report  and  issued  its  opinions  on  5  and  16  June  20154.  The  Impact 
Assessment Board made several recommendations and, in the light of the latter, the final impact 
assessment report inter alia:  

−  clarifies the scope of the review and this impact assessment; 

−  explains  the  relationship  with  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive,  the  Emission  Trading 

System and the Effort Sharing in the non-ETS sectors; 

−  provides  information  on  expected  energy  savings  and  their  cost-effectiveness  for 

existing product-specific measures and for potential additional product groups; 

−  explains  where  there  are  differences  for  different  products  groups  with  regard  to  the 

effect of the legislation; 

−  clarifies  that  the  lifetime  of  products  that  is  used  in  the  analysis  is  the  economic 
lifetime, which takes into account consumer behaviour on discarding certain products 
before the end of their technical lifetime; 

−  elaborates on the role of the market surveillance regulation and why it is not expected 
that the proposal for a new market surveillance regulation will lead to much additional 
market surveillance effort on ecodesign and energy labelling; 

−  highlights 

the  difficulty 

in  establishing  performance  benchmarks  for  market 

surveillance, even for long-established sectors such as consumer product safety; 

−  elaborates  on  the  effectiveness  and  practical  operation  of  the  product  registration 

database; 

−  analyses the option of merging the energy labelling and ecodesign frameworks; 

4  

SEC(2015) 323 

8 

 
                                                 
−  provides more (qualitative) explanation of the modelling results and corrects an error 

in the impacts in terms of jobs for the different label layouts; 

−  elaborates in more detail the monitoring arrangements for future evaluation.  

3.3. 

Use of Expertise and Consultation of interested parties 

3.3.1.  External expertise 

Two  studies  were  specifically  commissioned  to  prepare  the  review,  one  general  evaluation 
study  (further  referred  to  as  the  'evaluation  study')  and  one  specific  study  focussing  on 
consumer  understanding  and  behaviour  related  to  different  types  of  energy  labels  (further 
referred  to  as  the  'consumer  behaviour  study').  In  addition,  an  impact  assessment  study 
provided  specific  analysis  for  the  options  set  out  in  this  impact  assessment.  Further  studies 
requested  by  the  Commission  during  2011-2014  also  provided  relevant  input.  Details  are 
provided in Annex 1. 

3.3.2.  Consultation of interested parties 

Stakeholders were consulted through the following means: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Three stakeholder meetings organised by the contractor of the evaluation study. 

A public consultation on the ‘Your voice in Europe’ web page. 

A  stakeholder  meeting  on  selecting  the  energy  label  designs  to  be  tested  in  the 
second phase of the 'consumer behaviour study'. 

An international conference on products policy. 

An Ecodesign Consultation Forum meeting. 

Further detail on stakeholder consultation can be found in Annex 1. 

9 

 
4. 

REVIEW OF THE CURRENT POLICY AND PROBLEM DEFINITION 

4.1. 

The problem 

Since  this  impact  assessment  concerns  a  review  of  existing  Directives,  the  problem  is 
described in two steps in the following sections: firstly the basic problem that created the need 
for the Directives, and secondly the problems that have arisen in the course of the application 
and implementation of the Directives. 

4.1.1.  The basic problem 

The basic problem is that products can have a negative impact on the environment depending 
on  how  they  are  made,  used  and  disposed.  As  set  out  in  previous  impact  assessments  on 
sustainable product policy5 the most important market failures and imperfections that prevent 
the achievement of greater energy and environmental efficiency are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Prices  that  do  not  reflect  the  negative  environmental  impacts  of  the  production  or 
consumption of products; 

Difficulties  for  consumers  to  tell  whether  one  product  is  more  resource  efficient 
during its use phase than another; 

Higher  upfront  costs  when  buying  a  more  performing  product,  while  the  benefits 
accrue  over  a  longer  period  of  time  (i.e. during its use-phase). Consumers may not 
take  into  account  the  use  cost  of  a  product  but  focus  on  the  initial  purchase  price 
only; 

Measures  on  efficiency  of  products  taken  by  Member  States  create  barriers  to  the 
free  movement  of  goods  in  the  EU  and  unnecessary  burden  for  industry  to  comply 
with different sets of rules in each Member State. 

4.1.2.  The current problem 

The  above  problems  have  been  addressed  by  the  current  policy  framework  through  a  two-
pronged approach:  

• 

• 

5 

Banning the least energy and environmentally efficient products from the EU market 
through  ecodesign  requirements  for  manufacturers,  which  are  EU-harmonised  (thus, 
Member  States  cannot  set  different  requirements)  ensuring  the  free  movement  of 
energy-related products and eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden for companies. 
The aim of the Ecodesign Directive is to address both energy consumption and other 
significant  environmental  impacts  of  production,  use  and  end-of-life  treatment  of 
energy-related products; 

Encouraging  consumers  to  buy  more  energy  efficient  products  by  informing  them 
about  the  energy  use  of  products  through  a  mandatory  harmonised  EU  energy  label 
(see  figure  1)  provided  by  manufacturers  and  displayed  by  dealers.  The  aim  of  the 
Energy  Labelling  Directive  is  to  address  specifically  energy  consumption  during  the 

SEC(2008)2110  for  the  2008  Sustainable  Consumption  and  Production  and  Sustainable  Industrial 
Policy Action Plan, SEC(2008)2115 for the 2008 proposal for a recast of the Ecodesign Directive and 
SEC(2008)2862 for the 2008 proposal for a recast of the Energy Labelling Directive. 

10 

 
                                                 
use phase and, where relevant, other consumption of resources during use of energy-
related products. 

The  two  approaches  are  complementary,  with  ecodesign  'pushing'  the  market  and  energy 
labels  'pulling'  it,  as  illustrated  in  figure  2.  Energy  labels  are  only  introduced  for  products 
where an information failure for the user exists, which is not always the case for professional 
products. A detailed presentation of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directive and their 
implementation is provided in Annex 2. 

Problems have arisen, in particular: 

•  Energy labels have proved successful in encouraging consumers to buy more energy 
efficient  models  and  manufacturers  have  responded  by  producing  ever  more  energy 
efficient  products.  As  a  result  most  products  are  now  in  the  top  classes,  which  have 
become overpopulated, making it more difficult to distinguish between models. Thus, 
rescaling  may  be  necessary,  in  which  the  required  efficiency  for  each  label  class  is 
redefined and a product model that now is in class A++ will be 'rescaled' to e.g. class 
B. This has not yet been undertaken for specific products; when this was proposed to 
stakeholders  for  televisions  in  2012,  this  was  considered  premature  without  clear 
provisions for this in the Energy Labelling Directive. Moreover, the "A+", "A++" and 
"A+++" classes introduced during the previous revision of the labelling Directive have 
shown  to  be  less  effective  in  persuading  consumers  to  buy  more  efficient  products 
than the A to G scale.  

• 

Non-compliance with ecodesign and labelling requirements, in part related to weak 

enforcement by national market surveillance authorities.  

Evaluation also revealed further problems, described in section 4.2.3, with the current policy 
framework and implementation. 

Figure 2: The combined effect of ecodesign ('minimum standards') and energy labels 

11 

 
 
4.1.3.  Relationship with other energy efficiency and climate policies 

The  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and  the  Ecodesign  Directive  contribute  to  the  Energy 
Efficiency Directive's6 target (Article 3) to ensure that the Union's 2020 energy consumption 
is  not  more  than  1483  mtoe  of  primary  energy  or  not  more  than  1086  mtoe  of  final  energy 
consumption.  The  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and 
the  Ecodesign  Directive  are 
complementary to the measures Member States are required to take by the Energy Efficiency 
Directive.  In  order  to  prevent  double  counting,  it  is  specified  in  the  Energy  Efficiency 
Directive  that  for  energy  savings  obligations  of  Member  States  (Article  7),  only  savings 
exceeding those achieved by ecodesign can be counted towards those obligations. 

There is no direct relation between the Energy Labelling and the Ecodesign Directives and the 
EU's main policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. the Emission Trading 
System  (ETS)7  and  the  Effort  Sharing  by  Member  States  in  the  non-ETS  sectors8.  Energy 
efficiency policy is a policy in its own right for the objectives of competitiveness, security of 
supply  and  sustainability.  Energy  efficiency  measures  are  complementary  to  ETS  because 
they  address  non-price  barriers  such  as  lack  of  information,  bounded  rationality  and  high 
behavioural discount rates. In the case of products, the incentive generated by the ETS could 
in theory prompt companies exposed to the ETS price to pressure appliance manufacturers to 
reduce  this  consumption,  but  in  practice  this  incentive  is  too  indirect,  diffuse  and 
economically  insignificant  to  make  a  real  difference.  By  contrast,  energy  labelling  provides 
consumers with information so that they can make more informed decisions precisely in the 
situations where it is relevant, namely when new products are purchased. Ecodesign removes 
all products from the market that would be more costly than the product that would have the 
least cost during its lifetime (purchase costs plus operating costs), because not all consumers 
make  "rational"  decisions  and  they  discount  future  cost  savings  more  than  what  is  rational 
(and certainly more than what is socio-economically optimal). 

By reducing electricity consumption of products, ecodesign and energy labelling have a direct 
effect on the demand for electricity, which is part of the ETS sector. Because ecodesign and 
energy labelling reduce the demand for electricity, less effort is needed under the ETS. As a 
result,  the  price  of  allowances  is  lower  than  it  would  otherwise  be9.  However,  so  far 
Commission  assessments  have  not  found  evidence  of  this  in  the  current  framework,  as  the 
decrease  in  the  prices  of  allowances  was  primarily  driven  by  lower  economic  activity  and 
other factors. In the future this might change, although the proposed Market Stability Reserve, 
by  reducing  the  surplus,  would  counteract  this  effect  and  stabilise  the  level  of  emission 
allowance  prices10.  In  the  sectors  not  covered  by  ETS,  EU  action  on  ecodesign  and  energy 
labelling brings down the cost of national action to achieve greenhouse gas emission saving 
targets.  Reducing  energy  use  of  products  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member 
States, because this would lead to divergent national provisions and procedures (while having 
similar objectives) that would generate undue costs for industry (and eventually consumers) 
and constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU. 

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 

Directive 2012/27/EU 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm 
Impact  Assessment  accompanying  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament 
and the Council on Energy Efficiency and its contribution to energy security and the 2030 Framework 
for climate and energy policySWD(2014) 255 
ibid 

12 

 
 
                                                 
4.2. 

Evaluation of the current policy framework 

4.2.1. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The  scope  of  the  evaluation  concerns  energy-related  products  and  it  does  not  go  into  the 
question of whether energy savings are more or less cost-effectively achieved in other sectors. 
The  PRIMES  reference  and  policy  scenario  2013  show  that  in  order  to  achieve  our 
decarbonisation  and  energy  targets,  all  policy  measures  are  necessary  for  delivering  energy 
savings.  Further,  given  that  the  Ecodesign  Directive  applies  the  principle  of  setting 
requirements at the least life cycle cost level (explained further on in this impact assessment) 
and given that the Energy Labelling Directive requires that each step on the label corresponds 
to significant cost savings to the user, the costs to achieve the energy savings through these 
Directives are equal to or less than zero (further detail at the end of section 4.2.2). 

The Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives are both framework Directives that lay down 
the conditions under which requirements can be set for specific energy-related products (such 
as  washing  machines  or  electric  motors)  through  delegated  acts  (for  energy  labelling)  and 
implementing  acts  (for  ecodesign).  The  evaluation  and  this  impact  assessment  focus  on  the 
framework Directives and not on the individual implementing regulations, which are subject 
to their own consultation and impact assessment process (see also process chart in Annex 2). 
Therefore,  the  evaluation  examined  the  implementation  of  the  Directives  for  the  product 
groups covered by the first Ecodesign Directive (article 16, which contained a list of priority 
products)  and  the  two  subsequent  working  plans.  Any  new  products  that  may  in  future  be 
addressed under this framework will be identified in the 2015-2017 Working Plan, which the 
Commission  plans  to  adopt  as  part  of  the  Circular  Economy  package  later  in  2015.  Any 
identified  product  groups  would  be  subject  to  preparatory  studies  that  investigate  in  more 
detail  the  potential  for  environmental  improvement  and  provide  the  elements  for  the 
identification of policy options in the subsequent impact assessments. 

There are potentially other policy measures than Energy Labelling and Ecodesign that could 
increase the efficiency of energy-related products, such as fiscal measures, incentive schemes, 
voluntary schemes etc. However, this evaluation focusses on the specific problems that have 
arisen in the implementation of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign, such as effectiveness of 
energy labels and enforcement. In wider context, energy labelling and ecodesign policies have 
shown to work well across the world. The Energy Labelling and Ecodesign policies have been 
an  example  for  other  jurisdictions  outside  the  EU,  thus  driving  significantly  more  energy 
savings,  contributing  to  a  more  uniform  global  playing  field  and  creating  opportunities  for 
European business  abroad. The setting  of minimum  efficiency and labelling requirements is 
recognised globally as one of the most effective policy tools in the area of energy efficiency. 
A  recent  study    for  the  Commission11  shows  that  out  of  59  non-EU  countries  that  have 
adopted equipment energy labelling schemes, half of them (53%) have adopted designs that 
have  fully  or  partially  emulated  the  EU  energy  label  (including  major  economies  such  as 
Brazil,  China,  Korea,  Russia  and  South  Africa).  At  least  45  countries  outside  the  European 
Union have adopted minimum energy efficiency requirements for products, some of them in 
fact  implementing  ecodesign  regulations  in  the  context  of  association  agreements  or  EU 
membership  negotiations.  The  EU  and  the  US  are  the  world  leaders  in  the  development  of 
minimum energy efficiency requirements and energy labelling.  

11 

Ecofys, Impacts of the EU’s Ecodesign and Energy/Tyre labelling legislation on third jurisdictions, 30 
April 2014 

13 

 
                                                 
4.2.2.  Achievements of the legislative framework 

To date 24 ecodesign implementing regulations have been put in place, some of which have 
been subsequently updated through amendment, and two ecodesign voluntary agreements are 
in place. Products covered range from household products, such as fridges, lamps and boilers, 
to  professional  and  industrial  products,  such  as  electric  motors  and  fans.  In  addition,  12 
delegated  regulations  on  energy  labelling  now  ensure  that  a  range  of  products  must  be  sold 
with  an  EU  energy  label  attached.  The  effectiveness  of  the  policy  is  illustrated  by  the 
transformation of the market for fridges and washing machines shown in figure 3a and 3b. 

Figure 3a: Transformation of the EU Market for refrigerators 

14 

 
 
Figure 3b: Transformation of the EU Market for washing machines 

It  is  possible  that  the  energy  efficiency  improvement  is  in  part  due  to  other  factors  such  as 
ongoing market trends independently of the policy. No ex-post counterfactual data is available 
to assess this, because it is difficult to quantitatively assess what would have happened in the 
absence of the policy. In any case, energy efficiency improvements do not necessarily occur 
spontaneously.  On  the  contrary,  for  example  in  the  case  of  vacuum  cleaners,  a  product  that 
was until recently not regulated by ecodesign or energy labelling, energy use per product was, 
in absence of regulation, increasing rather than decreasing, with no parallel improvement in 
functionality12.  By contrast, the  various consumer studies show a high impact of the energy 
label on consumer choice13. In addition, the sheer existence of the energy label for a product 
group  triggers  a  competition  towards  more  energy  efficiency  among  the  manufacturers14. 
Therefore,  at  least  a  significant  part  of  the  observed  energy  efficiency  improvement  can  be 
attributed to the Directives. 

 Based on modelling, in which energy  use developments in the different sectors affected by 
ecodesign and energy labelling until 2010 were corroborated with Eurostat data, the ecodesign 
and energy labelling measures in place to date (see Annex 2 for a full list) are estimated to 
save 175 mtoe primary energy per year in 202015. This estimate takes into accounts 'rebound' 
effects, i.e. behavioural responses to the use of more efficient products (e.g. using them more 

12 

13 

14  

15 

AEA Energy & Environment, Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 
17 Vacuum Cleaners, February 2009 
See studies referred to on page 12/13 of London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the 
energy label – and of potential changes to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 
2014;  
Ecofys, Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive: 
Final Report section 5.1.1.2. "Manufacturer response" p 76 
This estimate includes the impact of all the measures adopted until March 2015, and that of measures at 
various  stages  of  adoption.  It  does  not  include  the  impact  of  future  measures  covering  those  product 
groups where only preparatory studies are on-going or that are considered for the next Working Plan, or 
the impact of on-going and future revisions of existing measures. 

15 

 
                                                 
than was previously the case for the less efficient product16) and the trend towards ever more 
and  bigger  appliances  (computers,  displays, etc.)  per  household.  The  estimate  does  not  take 
into  account  any  non-compliance  with  the  legislation,  of  which  section  4.2.3  indicates 
currently  to  be  about  10%  of  expected  energy  savings.  Taking  this  into  account  means  that 
ecodesign and energy labelling measures contribute to about two fifths of the EU 2020 target 
of 20% energy savings by 2020.Energy savings from considering new product groups within 
the scope of the Directives show a significantly lower cost-effective energy savings potential 
of around 6 mtoe per year in 2030. 

Consumers trust the energy label and usually take it into account when they buy appliances17. 
The label achieves its intended effect in slightly different ways for different types of products. 
For appliances such as fridges and washing machines, for which many consumers are aware 
that  these  can  significantly  affect  their  household  bills,  the  label  provides  easily  accessible 
and  standardised  information  to  help  consumers  take  this  into  account  in  their  choice.  For 
other types of appliances where many consumers are less aware of the significance on their 
household energy bills, such as televisions, the label first of all raises their awareness on this 
and  then  secondly  serves  in  a  similar  way  as  for  fridges  and  washing  machines.  This  is 
evidenced  by  the  results  of  the  consumer  behaviour  study18  which  found  that  the  choice 
between one and another label design has a greater difference in impact on behaviour when 
consumers  rank  energy  efficiency  of  low  importance  in  their  purchasing  decision.  This 
observation was particularly strong in the case of televisions. 

The  Directives  have  helped  consumers  to  lower  their  utility  bills19,  as  the  least  efficient 
products are taken off the market through ecodesign and the choice of more efficient products 
is  facilitated  through  energy  labelling.  For  example,  for  fridges  the  average  difference  in 
energy  consumption  between  A+++  and  class  B  appliances  is  around  160  kWh  per  year 
representing  about  €600  over  the  appliance's  lifetime.  In  total,  the  ecodesign  and  energy 
labelling  measures  in  place  to  date  are  estimated  to  save  end-users  of  products  (household, 
commercial  and  industry)  110  billion  euro  net  (higher  acquisition  costs  counterbalanced  by 
lower running costs) per year20: composed of ca. € 170 billion saving on energy bills and € 60 
billion  extra  acquisition  costs.  The  net  savings  are€  100  billion  when  taking  into  account 
current  non-compliance  levels.  This  is  equivalent  to  465  euros  per  household  per  year.  By 
2030,  the  net  savings  achieved  by  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  measures  in  the  different 
sectors will have grown to almost € 300 billion, saving the EU consumers almost 17% on total 
costs versus the situation without measures (see Figure 3c). 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Recent  academic  research  found  rebound  effects  between  10  and  30%  for  a  broad  range  of  energy 
conservation measures, and a lower estimate for lamps specifically (6%). Miklós Antal, Jeroen C.J.M. 
van  den  Bergh,  Re-spending  rebound:  A  macro-level  assessment  for  OECD  countries  and  emerging 
economies,  Energy  Policy  2014;  Galvin,  R.,  Estimating  broad-brush  rebound  effects  for  household 
energy  consumption  in  the  EU28  countries  and  Norway:  some  policy  implications  of  Odyssee  data, 
Energy  Policy  2014;  Joachim  Schleich  et.  al.,  A  brighter  future?  Quantifying  the  rebound  effect  in 
energy efficient lighting, Energy Policy, 2014. 
Ecofys, Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive: 
Background report I: Literature review, December 2013.  
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes 
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014 
The actual bills may at present not be lower or not as much lower as expected as a result of the policy, 
because the cost savings due to energy efficiency are (at least in part) offset by use of more and bigger 
appliances and by inceasing energy prices. 
VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p6 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf  

16 

 
                                                 
Figure  3c:  Consumer  total  expenditure  (running  costs  +  acquisition  costs)  EU  2030  in  billion  euro  with 
current  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  measures  (blue)  compared  to  absence  of  policy  (blue  plus  pink), 
assuming energy price escalation rate of 4%. The graph includes the impact of tyre labelling (transport 
sector) which is not the subject of this impact assessment. 21 

For environmental aspects other than energy consumption there has been less impact so far, 
because most of such ecodesign requirements were introduced more recently and do not yet 
apply. The exception is water consumption, which has been addressed by the energy label for 
washing  machines  since  1996,  by  the  energy  label  for  dishwashers  since  1999,  and  by 
ecodesign  requirement  for  washing  machines  since  2011.  For  both  washing  machines  and 
dishwashers  the  water  consumption  per  cycle  more  than  halved  over  the  last  ten  years22. 
These regulations have thus also contributed to the strategy for a resource-efficient Europe23. 

Apart from environmental and monetary benefits to end-users, the setting of requirements at 
EU  level  also  benefits  industry.  A  common  and  predictable  regulatory  framework  brings 
down  costs  for  manufacturers,  because  rules  are  harmonised  across  the  EU.  It  reduces  the 
commercial and financial risks of innovation24 and allows European industry to compete with 
lower cost countries on higher value added products. The increase in acquisition costs for the 
consumers  translates  into  higher  business  revenue  for  all  market  actors  (plus  taxes).  For 
measures  existing  and  in  the  pipeline  today,  it  is  calculated  that  by  2020,  the  extra  revenue 
will  be  €  55  bln,  growing  to  €  75  bln  by  2030,  compared  to  a  situation  without  measures. 
Some 43% will go to industry, 11-12% to wholesale and 45% to retail, subdivided into 13-
16% to retail and (because there is a large share of installed products) 30-33% to installers.25 
While there is some administrative burden involved for business with the redesign and testing 
of the products, as well as the provision of technical documentation and of the energy label, 

21  
22 

23 
24 

25  

VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p44 
VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers, 
Lighting, Set-top Boxes and Pumps, 12 March 2014. 
COM(2011) 21 
in theory; in practice this has been confirmed for some products sectors, but not for some others, see: 
Ecofys,  Impact  of  Ecodesign  and  Energy/Tyre  Labelling  on  R&D  and  Technological  Innovation,,  23 
May 2014 
VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p44 

17 

 
 
                                                 
these costs are orders of magnitude lower than the additional revenue generated by the higher 
acquisition costs of the products.26 

All in all, it can be stated with confidence that the existing measures under the two framework 
directives achieve energy savings at financial costs which are negative for all actors involved 
(they are gains), or, at most, are zero. The net consumer cost savings of the measures in the 
different sectors are illustrated in Figure 3c above. The reason for this is that the Ecodesign 
Directive requires the minimum requirements on product energy efficiency to be established 
at the level of Least Life Cycle Cost (LLCC) from the point of view of the end-user, meaning 
the  level  at  which  the  combined  purchase  and  running  costs  (energy,  maintenance,  disposal 
etc.)  of  a  product  are  the  lowest.  Less  efficient  products  would  be  cheaper  to  buy,  but  that 
advantage would be outweighed by the higher running costs. More efficient products would 
have  lower  running  costs,  but  the  advantage  would  be  outweighed  by  the  higher  purchase 
cost.  Thus  the  LLCC  level  achieves  the  highest  cost  savings  compared  to  the  base  case, 
meaning  the  ecodesign  measures  are  cost-savers  by  definition.  The  Energy  Labelling 
Directive  requires  that  each  step  in  the  label  corresponds  to  significant  cost  savings  to  the 
user. As a result, all the classes in the label have to include products whose combined running 
and  purchase  costs  are  lower  than  that  of  the  base-case  non-efficient  product  (below  the 
"break-even point" in Figure 3d), ensuring that energy labelling promotes, also by definition, 
products that bring absolute cost savings over the life cycle. 

Figure 3d. Typical Life Cycle Cost curve. I = Basecase, II = Least Life Cycle Cost, III = No financial loss 
(break even point), IV = Best Available Technology 27 

26  

For example, the compliance costs for the redesign of the products (which includes testing) covered by 
15  ecodesign  regulations  are  estimated  at  merely  45  million  euros  /  year  for  the  entire  industry  (see 
Annex  9  Measure  8).  Other  administrative  costs  (such  as  producing  technical  documentation  and 
providing the label) tend to be much lower than this. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
4.2.3.  Problems with the current legislation and implementation 

The evaluation study identified the following problems with the current framework28: 

Problems related to Energy Labelling 

(1) 

'Reduced effectiveness of labels following the introduction of A+ and up classes': In 
the recast of the Energy Labelling Directive in 2010 three classes (A+++, A++, A+) 
were  added  on  top  of  the  existing  labelling  A  (best)  -  G  (worst)  scale  of  the  EU 
energy label. These new classes have reduced the effect of the label on consumers to 
purchase more efficient products. While consumer research shows that the new label 
scale is understandable for consumers29, it has reduced their willingness to pay more 
for more efficient products, because they are less motivated by a difference between 
A+ and A+++ than by a difference between C and A.30 

The scale of this problem can be illustrated by the difference in energy consumption 
between A+++ and A+ washing machines (with 7 kg load) which is 50 kWh/year31. 
At  sales  of  more  than  15  million  washing  machines  a  year32,  this  difference  means 
after a period of fifteen years more than 11 TWh/year electricity use (1 mtoe primary 
energy) for all washing machines bought in that period. Given that washing machines 
present  only  a  fraction  of  the  savings  of  all  labelled  products,  the  scale  of  this 
problem  is  significant.  At  the  same  time,  the  addition  of  A+  and  up  classes  meant 
that  the  scale  remains  of  a  closed  type.  Thus,  a  rescaling  of  the  label  classes  is 
necessary  when  a  large  share  of  the  market  reaches  class  A+++.  Rescaling  has  not 
yet been undertaken, as no agreed method exists33 and the possibility to add + classes 
has so far undermined any compromise for such rescaling. 

For several product groups, products populate mainly the highest classes leaving the 
lowest  classes  unpopulated,  which  is  not  known  to  consumers34.  This  is  in  part 
because  of  the  success  of  the  scheme,  as  manufacturers  have  responded  to  the 
challenge  of  producing  more  energy  efficient  products,  but  also  because  of 
incoherence  between  energy  labelling  and  ecodesign  regulations.  For  a  number  of 
product groups, the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations have in the course of 
time become incoherent, because further steps of staged bans by ecodesign were put 
into place while energy labels were unchanged. This means that a number of classes 

27  From:VHK,    Methodology  for  Ecodesign  of  Energy-related  Products  (MEErP)  2011,  Methodology  Report 

28 
29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Part 1 (Methods), 28 November 2011, page 136. 
Ecofys, final technical report  p.4 
Ecofys, final technical report  p.81 and London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the 
energy label – and of potential changes to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 
2014 
Confirmed  also  by  a  recent  study  finding  that  the  A  class  is  an  anchor  for  consumers’  judgment  of 
energy efficiency and that an extension with plusses weakens the label, resulting in consumers attaching 
less  importance  to  energy  efficiency  when  choosing  appliances  (Folke  Ölander  &  John  Thøgersen,  
Informing Versus Nudging in Environmental Policy, J Consum Policy, 8 March 2014) 
VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers, 
Lighting, Set-top Boxes and Pumps, 12 March 2014. 
VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers, 
Lighting, Set-top Boxes and Pumps, 12 March 2014. 
When  rescaling  was  proposed  to  stakeholders  for  televisions  in  2012,  this  was  considered  premature 
without clear provisions for this in the Energy Labelling Directive. 
Notably for washing machines: 43% of sales in 2014 were of class A+++ (topten.eu, Energy efficiency 
of  White  Goods 
the  market  with  sales  data,  3  June  2015, 
in  Europe:  monitoring 
http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/WhiteGoods_in_Europe_June15.pdf)  

19 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
(2) 

shown on the energy label are unpopulated because of ecodesign legislation having 
banned products of that efficiency. In the most extreme cases of washing machines, 
fridges and dishwashers, the energy label currently displays A+++ to D classes, but 
only A+++, A++ and A+ appliances can still be placed on the market. 

'Increase in size of appliances': There is a trend towards larger products in particular 
product  groups,  i.e.  refrigerators,  washing  machines  and  TV’s.  For  example,  the 
average  viewable  surface  area  of  TV's  grew  from  10  dm²  (19  inches  diagonal)  in 
1990 to 28 dm² (32 inches) in 2010 and is projected to rise to an average 71 dm² (51 
inch) in 203035. As a result, overall efficiency improvements for these products may 
not result in absolute energy savings. It is unclear if this trend is solely in response to 
consumer demand or whether this is in part a development driven by the label since it 
is  normally  easier  to  make  larger  appliances  more  efficient  and  thus  obtain  higher 
label classes36: the rating scale of the label rewards energy efficiency, i.e. energy use 
related  to  a  function  such  as  the  screen  size  of  a  TV.  Although  the  label  provides 
consumers  also  with  the  absolute  energy  consumption,  some  consumers  do  not 
understand  this37  and  a  significant  share  of  consumers  thinks  the  rating  scale  itself 
represents energy consumption, rather than efficiency38. 

Problems related to both Energy Labelling and Ecodesign 

(3) 

'Long  rulemaking  processes,  leading  to  outdated  technical  and  preparatory  work': 
While the entire process from the start of the preparatory study to the publication of 
the  regulation  should  be  possible  within  41  months,  until  2012  the  average  was  49 
months. This leads to lost savings as measures enter into force later and are based on 
outdated  market  data.  After  the  preparatory  study,  the  process  takes  approximately 
20  months  (see  for  further  detail  Annex  2).  Thus,  even  if  the  41-month  schedule 
could be followed, the market data from the preparatory study will be outdated by the 
time of the decision on the regulation. The lack of availability and access to recent 
market data is a problem for the preparatory study and for the regulatory process if 
there is a need to update such data. 

Another  aspect  related  to  the  rule-making  process  is  that  the  Energy  Labelling 
Directive  lacks  a  working  plan  and  a  formalised  stakeholder  forum  such  as  the 
Consultation  Forum  under  the  Ecodesign  Directive,  although  in  practice  ecodesign 
and  energy  labelling  regulations  have  always  been  developed  together  using  the 
Ecodesign Directive's working plan and stakeholder forum as a basis. So far only in 
one case was only an energy labelling regulation developed (for updating all energy 
labelling regulations with regard to the display of the label on the internet), for which 
the same consultation procedure was applied as for ecodesign. 

(4) 

'Too low level of ambition for a number of product regulations': The evaluation study 
found  that  while  for  some  product  groups  ecodesign  regulations  and  labels  have 

35 
36 

37 
38 

VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p33 
E.g. in Germany 2012 90% of TVs with a screen size of less than 80 cm had class A and B and hardly 
any class A+, whereas more than 50% of TVs a screen size of 140 cm or more had class A+; almost all 
washing  machines  of  capacity  3-4.5  kg  had  class  A  or  A+,  whereas  more  than  80%  of  those  with 
capacity of 8 kg had class A+++; Okopol, Beyond energy efficiency, May 2014, p.10 
Ecofys final technical report p.80 
Ecofys,  Background  report  II:  Survey  results.  p.47;  Wade  and  Watson,  The  New  European  Energy 
Label: Assessing Consumer Comprehension and Effectiveness as a Market Transformation Tool, May 
2013, p.92.  

20 

 
                                                 
shown the right ambition level, for many other product groups the level of ambition 
is too low compared to what is technically and economically feasible (see Annex 10 
for details). The evaluation highlighted this is often related to the problem of limited 
and outdated data. In addition, also the requirement in the Ecodesign Directive39 of 
aiming to set requirements at the least life cycle cost40 poses problems. This criterion 
assumes  that  more  efficient  products  have  increased  investment  cost  and  decreased 
cost  of  operation  (namely  energy  cost).  On  the  basis  of  product-specific  conditions 
(taking e.g. into consumer behaviour and durability of the product that determine its 
lifetime)  the  level  of  the  requirement  for  the  least  life  cycle  cost  should  be 
established.  However,  for  e.g.  electronic  products  there  is  not  always  a  clear 
relationship between purchase price and efficiency41. In addition the evaluation study 
indicates  that  two  existing  voluntary  agreements  have  an  ambition  level  that  is  too 
low compared to what is technically and economically feasible.42 

(5) 

Non-compliance due to 'weak enforcement': The expert estimate from the evaluation 
study is that yearly around 0.6% of the market is surveyed. The indication is that 10-
25%  of  products  on  the  market  are  non-compliant  with  ecodesign  requirements43. 
Some 20% of products are estimated to be offered for sale without the energy labels 
displayed  and  another  15%  have  the  label  displayed  in  an  insufficient  way  (e.g. 
wrong placement, retailer made label, label hidden or covered). On the basis of these 
figures,  the  average  level  of  non-compliance  with  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling 
regulation is estimated at 20%. 

The share of non-compliance itself does not provide a clear indication of what the scale 
of the problem is with regard to loss of envisaged energy savings: some non-compliant 
products may be only a little less efficient than required or indicated on the label, while 
others  may  be  much  less  efficient.  Based  on  expert  estimates,  the  evaluation  study 
indicates  that  around  10%  of  envisaged  energy  savings  are  being  lost  due  to  non-
compliance44. In addition to the findings of the evaluation study, further analysis of 
market  surveillance  performance  by  Member  States  based  on  collection  of  data  by 
the Commission is provided in Annex 3. 

There  is  a  general  agreement  that  the  level  of  market  surveillance  is  too  low  and 
should be increased as it is economically beneficial for society (current investments 
in enforcement are estimated to be 0.05% of the value of lost energy savings45). Non-
compliance  also  affects  consumers,  who  may  have  bought  an  appliance  with  a 

39 
40 

41 
42 
43 

44 

45 

In point 1 of Annex II of the Ecodesign Directive 
The life cycle cost is the combined cost of purchasing the appliance and the running cost (energy and 
any  other  resources)  over  its  lifetime.  Setting  requirements  at  the  least  life  cycle  cost  means  that  the 
level of the requirement is set as such that the cheap, inefficient appliances are banned, but not the ones 
that are cheapest in life cycle cost. 
Hans-Paul Siderius, Setting MEPS for electronic products, Energy Policy 2014. 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. Annex I, p.112-113 
Such  estimates  probably  exclude  so-called  formal  non-compliances  such  as  incorrect  documentation 
delivered with the product. As illustration of different levels of non-compliance, in the Atlete II project 
(  http://www.atlete.eu/2/  )  out  of  50  washing  machines,  none  were  found  non-compliant  with  the 
ecodesign requirement for energy efficiency, seven were found to be non-compliant with other specific 
ecodesign requirements (e.g. water consumption), but as many as 34 were found to be non-compliant 
with generic ecodesign requirements such as requirements for the booklet of instructions. 
Ecofys, Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive: 
Background report I: Literature review, December 2013, p.9.  
Ecofys  final  technical  report  p.159  referring  to  P.  Waide  et  al.,  Enforcement  of  energy  efficiency 
regulations for energy consuming equipment: findings from a new European study, Proceedings of the 
6th International Conference EEDAL'11 Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting 

21 

 
                                                 
different performance than what they were informed of, and the competitiveness of 
many  manufacturers  as  it  undermines  a  level  playing  field.  There  are  a  number  of 
different drivers behind the weak enforcement:  

– 

– 

– 

80%  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  think  that  not  enough 
resources are given to market surveillance authorities. 

The evaluation also highlighted unclear provisions in the legal texts, notably an 
overlap  of  requirements  between  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and  its 
delegated acts46, which leads to questions of interpretation and makes analysis 
of  suspected  non-compliance  cases  more  difficult.  In  addition,  there  is  an 
overlap  of  provisions  between  the  Directives  and  the  market  surveillance 
regulation47.  The  market  surveillance  regulation  sets  out 
the  general 
requirements  and  procedures  for  Members  States  to  enforce  EU-harmonised 
product  legislation,  while  product-specific  legislation  such  as  the  ecodesign 
and  energy  labelling  include  the  requirements  for  economic  operators  that 
Member States need to enforce. However, the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling 
Directives  currently  also  include  a  number  of  provisions  on  procedures  for 
enforcement.  This  overlap  is  less  likely  to  lead  to  interpretation  questions,  as 
the  provisions  in  the  Ecodesign  and  Energy  labelling  Directive  should  take 
precedence  over  those  in  the  market  surveillance  regulation.  Nevertheless, 
different  procedures  for  market  surveillance  for  Ecodesign  and  Energy 
Labelling than for safety legislation (even though the products concerned may 
be  the  same  ones)  sectors  creates  additional  burden  for  Member  States 
authorities, making market surveillance less efficient. 

A  specific  obstacle  for  authorities  concerns  the  timely  access  to  technical 
documentation  and  the  ability  to  contact  foreign  entities,  including  the 
identification  of  the  manufacturer48.  More  importantly,  even  in  the  common 
case  where  the  manufacturer  is  known  and  contacted,  obtaining  the  technical 
documentation for individual products often takes several weeks49, even though 
the  legislation  requires  that  this  should  be  made  available  within  10  days. 
Furthermore,  manufacturers  use  the  same  energy  label  and/or  ecodesign 
declarations for a range of “product family” models ("equivalent models") that 
have  the  same  performance50,  but  this  information  is  only  available  once  the 
technical  information  file  is  received  and  since  it  is  not  available  in  readily 
shareable electronic format market surveillance authorities are often not aware 
that  other  authorities  may  have  already  tested  an  equivalent  model.  As  10 

46 

47 
48 
49 

50 

Article 4, 5 and 6 of the Energy Labeling Directive contain requirements for Member States. These are 
effectively requirements for suppliers and dealers and are included as such also in the delegated acts, 
though with more precision, but the overlap of requirements leads to questions of interpretation. 
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, for which the Commission has proposed a revision (COM(2013)75) 
Raised by authorities in interviews; cf. Ecofys final technical report, p.162 
One  Member  State  indicated  that  it  can  take  their  market  surveillance  authority  sometimes  up  to  50 
days  to  obtain  technical  documentation  from  manufacturers,  because  of  lack  of  cooperation,  even 
though  the  Directives  oblige  manufactures  to  supply  it  within  10  days;  see  Annex  1.  Market 
surveillance  inspectors  also  report  that  technical  documentation  and/or  test  reports  received  are 
sometimes  dated  after  the  date  of  their  request,  whereas  manufacturers  should  have  such  information 
readily available.  
As indicated in the Ecopliant ( http://www.ecopliant.eu/ ) Establish Best Practice interim report on the 
five  stages  of  market  surveillance  studied:  "The  model  numbers  of  certain  products  are  inconsistent 
across the EU. For instance, the model number of a product in one MS may be different from the model 
number of the same product in a different MS." 

22 

 
                                                 
market surveillance authorities (MSAs) indicate in the Ecopliant project "The 
different trademarks and different model identification for equivalent products 
is  often  a  problem  for  MSAs  controlling  the  national  markets,  and  this  is 
especially a barrier for increased coordination of market surveillance activities 
across the EU."51 

– 

Cooperation between market surveillance authorities is considered limited and 
better coordination is a way in which the impact of market surveillance can be 
increased  without  significantly  increasing  the  resources  used  for  enforcement 
authorities at national level. 

Problem related to (predominantly) Ecodesign52 

(6) 

'Other  environmental  impacts  could  receive  more  attention':  the  evaluation  study 
found  that  regulations  to  date  have  mainly  addressed  the  use-phase  energy 
consumption, as this represents the most important contribution to the environmental 
impacts  of  the  energy-related  products.  There  is  potential  for  reduction  of  other 
environmental impacts of energy-related products, e.g. through increased durability. 
The  evaluation  study  indicates  that  for  properly  including  non-energy  aspects 
modifications  to  the  MEErP53  methodology  used  for  preparatory  studies  would  be 
necessary54.  To  address  other  environmental  impacts  of  products  more  widely,  an 
extension of the scope of the Directives to product groups other than energy-related 
products  would  be  necessary,  since  for  other  types  of  products,  environmental 
impacts other than use-phase energy usually dominate. However, the environmental 
impacts  of  products  other  than  energy-related products is a wider problem than the 
Ecodesign  Directive  and  there  may  be  other  ways  to  address  it  than  to  extend  the 
scope  of  the  Directive.  Therefore,  the  assessment  of  measures  related  to  the 
Ecodesign  Directive  to  address  this  problem  should  take  into  account  other  policy 
instruments that can address the underlying problem for these products. 

Thus, the following six problems are identified, along with their underlying drivers: 

(1) 

Reduced effectiveness of labels following the introduction of A+ and up classes 

– 

Label layout laid down in recast Energy Labelling Directive 

(2) 

Increase in size of appliances 

– 

– 

– 

Consumer demand for bigger products55 

A share of consumers interpret the label rating as absolute consumption 

Easier for larger appliances to be made more efficient and achieve higher label classes 

51 
52 

53 

54 
55 

Best Practice Guidelines, Ecopliant European Ecodesign Compliance Project (draft 19 December 2013) 
While the Energy Labelling Directive could be changed to address this problem, it can be argued that it 
was never meant to address this given the clear focus of the scope on the energy in the use-phase. 
Methodology 
Ecodesign 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/methodology/index_en.htm 
Ecofys final technical report p.5, although on p.32 it adds that on-going studies aim to address this. 
This driver is not further assessed in this impact assessment, because it is a driver external to the policy 
area concerned. 

Energy-related 

Products: 

the 

for 

of 

23 

 
 
                                                 
(3) 

Long rulemaking processes 

– 

– 

Proper consultation, consideration and assessment requires time56 

Limited and outdated data   

(4) 

Too low level of ambition for a number of product measures 

– 

– 

– 

Limited and outdated data   

Least life cycle cost criterion is poor guidance 

The criteria for requirements of self-regulation are not sufficiently detailed57 

(5) 

Weak enforcement 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Insufficient national resources made available 

Overlap of legal provisions 

Difficult access to technical documentation  

Insufficient cross-border cooperation 

(6) 

Little reduction of non-energy environmental impacts 

– 

– 

MEErP does not sufficiently capture some impacts 

Scope of the Directives excludes non-energy related products58 

These  six  problems  diminish  the  ability  of  the  legislation  to  reduce  negative  impacts  of 
products  on  the  environment.  They  lead  to  a  loss  of  potential  energy  savings,  unnecessary 
extra  cost  for  consumers,  not  satisfactorily  informing  them,  and  low  savings  impact  on 
environmental  issues  other  than  energy.  The  problems  identified  include  the  problems  that 
were not fully addressed by the non-legislative actions initiated after the 2012 review of the 
Ecodesign Directive59. 

4.3. 

The baseline: How will the problem evolve? 

The purpose of the baseline is to identify what would happen in the absence of new policy. 
The baseline is quantified so that the analysis of the policy options formulated and analysed in 
the next chapters can be compared to it. The quantification of the baseline is done on the basis 
of the 'ecodesign impact accounting' model, of which further detail is provided in Annex 5. 

56 

57 

58 

59 

This driver is not further assessed in this impact assessment, because it relates to general procedures not 
specific to this policy area. 
Annex  VIII  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  contains  indicative  criteria  that  may  be  used  to  evaluate  the 
admissibility of voluntary agreements as alternative to implementing meaures. On level of ambition, the 
criteria only indicate that there must be aaded value compared to business as usual, However, this driver 
is  not  further  assessed  in  this  impact  assessment,  because  the  Commission  is  in  the  process  of 
developing  guidelines  for  voluntary  agreements,  on  which  the  Ecodesign  Consultation  Forum  was 
consulted on 12  June  2014.  These  guidelines  aim  to  cover,  inter  alia,  the  ambition  level  of  voluntary 
agreements by specifying a minimum level of market share to be covered by such agreements. 
The driver in the context of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling. There may be other drivers in the context 
(or absence) of other policy instruments. 
Further detail on the 2012 review of the Ecodesign Directive is in Annex 4. 

24 

 
                                                 
In  the  absence  of  any  changes  to  the  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  Directives  and  any 
changes to the way they are implemented, there will continue to be further energy and other 
environmental  savings.  First  and  foremost  because  the  existing  ecodesign  and  energy 
labelling product regulations will continue to have effect: more stringent requirements already 
laid down in the ecodesign regulations will start apply at their scheduled dates and the product 
labels for categories of products that are not yet populating the highest label classes will drive 
industry to make more efficient products. Secondly, since the Directives would stay in place 
as  they  are,  also  new  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  product  regulations  for  new  product 
categories  would  still  be  developed  (if  product  categories  could  deliver  significant  savings) 
and existing  product ecodesign  and energy labelling product regulations  would  be  reviewed 
and  updated  if  there  are  significant  potential  further  savings  in  energy  and  other 
environmental impacts. 

However, in absence of any changes non-compliance will remain a problem and is expected 
to  remain  at  the  same  level  (see  Annex  3).  The  new  regulation  on  market  surveillance 
proposed by the Commission is likely to improve the framework for market surveillance. A 
key aspect of the proposal is that it removes overlaps of enforcement provisions between the 
market  surveillance  regulation,  the  general  product  safety  legislation  and  the  sector-specific 
product  legislation.  However,  it  does  not  remove  the  overlap  for  ecodesign  and  energy 
labelling,  because  the  general  product  safety  legislation  is  not  applicable  to  ecodesign  and 
energy labelling and it was considered not appropriate at the time of the market surveillance 
regulation  proposal  to  amend  the  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling,  since  they  were 
undergoing  their  own  review  and  stakeholder  consultation.  Therefore,  by  itself  the  new 
regulation on market surveillance is unlikely to lead to additional market surveillance effort 
on ecodesign and energy labelling by Member States, and it is assumed in the baseline that 
there is no improvement with regard to energy savings being lost due to non-compliance. This 
non-compliance not only affects the potential energy and environmental savings targeted by 
the policy, but, at least where it concerns labelled products, would also undermine consumer 
confidence  in  the  energy  label:  the  more  reports  are  published  on  non-compliance,  the  less 
consumers will trust the EU energy label. 

Further,  the  energy  label  will  be  running  into  its  limits:  the  labelling  scheme  will  lose  its 
impact  once  all  or  most  models  correspond  to  the  A+++  rating.  The  current  approach  of 
introducing an A-G label for a newly regulated appliance and then adding A+ and up classes 
to allow for technological progress would continue to apply. However, once the A+++ to D 
label would be in place for a specific product no further revision of the delegated act would be 
undertaken, because this requires rescaling, which has been rejected for the A+++ to D label 
when this was proposed for televisions.60 Thus, the energy labels were a large share of models 
would be in the highest classes would lose their meaning and effect on consumers61. 

There may also be other missed potential in the absence of any changes to the Ecodesign and 
Energy Labelling Directives or the way they are implemented. As pointed out, the evaluation 
study  indicated  that  higher  ambition  levels  on energy  efficiency  are  possible,  which  are  not 
achieved  in  the  current  implementation.  The  same  applies  to  non-energy  environmental 
impacts  of  energy-related  products.  Further,  other  types  of  products  will  remain  outside  the 
scope of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives. 

60 

61 

Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum meeting on Televisions (Lot 5) and Displays (Lot 3), 8 
October 2012 
This will soon be the cases for washing machines, for which in January and February 2013 44% of sales 
were of class A+++ or A++ (VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study). 

25 

 
                                                 
Figure 4 shows the resulting baseline trend in energy consumption of energy-related products 
in  absence  of  any  changes  in  the  policy  or  its  implementation,  taking  into  account  non-
compliances  and  the  limitations  of  the  energy  label.  Detail  on  the  development  for  specific 
product sectors as well as on consumer expenditure62 trends is provided in Annex 6. 

Figure  4  also  provides  a  comparison  with  what  would  have  happened  in  absence  of  energy 
efficiency  legislation  for  products.  This  is  to  illustrate  the  significant  energy  savings  gained 
from  regulating  energy  efficiency  of  products,  even  if  there  is  also  an  autonomous  trend  to 
improve energy efficiency for most types of energy-related products in absence of policy (not 
depicted, but taken into account in the 'ecodesign impact accounting' model)63.  

10500 

10000 

9500 

9000 

8500 

8000 

7500 

7000 

6500 

6000 

1990 

Energy of Entire Installed Stock (TWh/a)

No ecodesign/energy labelling 
policy 

Baseline

2010 

2015

2020

2025

2030 

Year

Figure 4: Energy use of all energy-related products for the baseline compared to no ecodesign and energy 
labelling policy 

4.4.  Who is affected and how? 

Consumers  are  affected,  because  the  policies  should  lower  their  utility  bills  and  the  overall 
life cycle cost of buying and using appliances. The energy label provides them with objective 
information on use of energy and other resources. 

Retailers64 are affected, because they have to ensure proper display of the label. In addition, 
the  shift  towards  more  efficient  appliances  which  usually  have  higher  costs  means  higher 
turn-over  and  likely  also  higher  profits.  The  affected  retailers  include  micro-enterprises65, 
which should be subject to the same rules as energy labels are only useful for consumers if all 
products are labelled in all retail outlets. 

62 

63 

64 
65 

The expenditure is the combined expenditure of purchase of products, energy costs during usage, and 
for some products, water costs during usage and/or installation and maintenance costs. 
This illustration does not consider or address the issue whether regulating products should be addressed 
at Member State or EU level, which is addressed in section 4.5.  
Including installers e.g. for products such as heaters 
For  definition  of  micro-enterprises  see  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-
analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm 

26 

 
 
                                                 
Manufacturers, both in the EU and those exporting to the EU are affected, because they have 
to  take  the  requirements  of  the  regulations  into  account  when  designing  new  products. 
Further,  the  label  presents  them  with  opportunity  to  compete  on  a  second  objective  factor, 
energy efficiency, in addition to price. The affected manufacturers would include any micro-
enterprises  for  the  same  reason  as  given  for  retailers  and  to  ensure  fair  competition  in  the 
single market where it concerns ecodesign requirements. The sectors concerned include few 
or no micro-enterprises manufacturers. 

Society at large is affected, because of the environmental benefits of the policy. 

Member  States  are  affected,  because  they  have  to  ensure  compliance  through  market 
surveillance and inform consumers about the label66. 

Third countries are affected, because the A-G energy labelling scheme has been followed as a 
model  in  many  different  countries  around  the  world  and  some  countries  have  also 
implemented  EU  ecodesign  regulations67.  They  are  also  affected  through  the  Agreement  on 
Technical  Barriers  to  Trade  which  is  to  ensure  that  regulations,  standards,  testing  and 
certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles, while also providing the right to 
implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives. 

Standardisation organisations are affected, because they need to develop the detailed testing 
and measurement methods. 

4.5. 

Justification of EU action 

The Energy Labelling Directive is based on Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union, which provides a legal base for measures to promote energy efficiency. 
The  Ecodesign  Directive  is  based  on  Article  114  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, the legal base for measures for the functioning of the internal market. 

The  objective  of  reducing  negative  environmental  impacts  of  products,  in  particular  energy 
use,  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States,  because  this  would  lead  to 
divergent  national  provisions  and  procedures  (while  having  similar  objectives)  that  would 
generate undue costs for industry (and eventually consumers) and constitute obstacles to the 
free  movement  of  goods  within  the  EU.  Only  through  harmonised  EU  rules  on  energy 
labelling and underlying measurements and testing can it be ensured that the same model of a 
product has the same published energy class throughout the EU. 

In the absence  of  EU  legislation, it is likely that all Member States would  introduce energy 
efficiency legislation for some product groups, because of consumer protection and because it 
is  difficult  to  achieve  the  target  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  without  addressing  the 
energy use of products. Acting at the EU level is the only way to ensure that requirements and 
labels for products placed on the market are equal in all Member States, thereby ensuring the 
functioning of the Internal Market underpinned by Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union. The principle of proportionality is examined in section 8. 

66 

67 

This includes the EEA EFTA states Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland who implement this EU policy 
as  well  as  Turkey  through  the  Customs  Union,  and  the  countries  of  the  Energy  Community  where  it 
concerns energy labelling. 
Ecofys, Impacts of the EU’s Ecodesign and Energy/Tyre labelling legislation on third jurisdictions. 

27 

 
                                                 
5. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  general  objective  of  the  Treaty  that  the  policy  aims  of  the  Energy  Labelling  and 
Ecodesign Directives contribute to is to ensure the functioning of the internal market through 
the  free  movement  of  goods  that  ensure  a  high  level  of  environmental  and  consumer 
protection. 

The specific objective of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives is to reduce energy 
consumption and other significant environmental impacts of products by ensuring consumers 
are  informed  in  a  relevant  and  easy-to-understand  way  and  allowing  industry  to  transform 
environmental challenges into economic opportunities. 

The evaluation found that the objectives remain relevant and that increasing energy efficiency 
has in fact gained in relevance. Therefore, the operational objectives for the present review of 
Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives are directly derived from the above objectives and 
are  to  update  the  policy  framework  so  that  it  continues  to  ensure  the  functioning  of  the 
internal market, a high reduction of energy consumption and other environmental impacts of 
products. In addition, in light of the problems identified further specifically objectives of this 
review are to ensure that an update of the policy framework is relevant, useful and easy-to-
understand  for  consumers  and  can  be  enforced  easily  and  appropriately.  Further  specific 
objectives  reinforced  by  the  Commission's  drive  for  better  regulation  are  to  ensure  that  the 
policy is simple, apt for purpose and robust to future developments and cost-effective. Finally, 
in addition to the specific objectives a criterion for the assessment should be that the policy 
framework should remain in line with international obligations. The extent of achievement of 
reduction of energy consumption will be measured quantitatively, while other objectives can 
be assessed only qualitatively. 

28 

 
6. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

6.1.  Measures to address the problems 

Reaching  the  objectives  identified  in  Chapter  5  necessitates  solutions  to  the  outstanding 
problems and underlying drivers defined in section 4.2. On the basis of the evaluation study 
and consultation, a number of actions was identified which are referred to as measures. These 
measures are described below and in section 6.2 they are bundled in different ways to form 
policy  options.  These  measures  work  equally  well  for  all  product  groups,  except  where 
explicitly  stated  differently  (provision  of  monetary  information).  Product-specific  features 
(e.g. economic lifetime68) are not different between the baseline and the measures with a few 
exceptions as described in Annex 5. 

6.1.1.  Measures to address problems related to Energy Labelling 

For the problem of  'reduced effectiveness of labels following the introduction  of A+ and up 
classes' the measure identified is to change the label scale layout. There are alternative layouts 
possible. A specific study tested the consumer understanding and the effect on their purchase 
decisions of a number of potential basic frames that could be used for a new energy label69. 
On the basis of the results of this first phase of the study, potential future label scale designs 
were drawn up for further analysis. Stakeholders were consulted on the draft label designs and 
rejected  the  label  design  adding  further  +  classes  (for  example  A++++),  requesting  that  it 
should not be among the label designs among to be tested on consumers in the second phase 
of the study70. Further information on the study and stakeholder consultation is in Annex 1. 

Measure 1A: Alphabetic A-G label 

The Energy Labelling Directive would be amended so that an A-G label would be applied for 
products  without  ever  adding  any  +  classes.  In  order  to  keep  promoting  further  efficiency 
improvements,  this  requires  periodic  rescaling  in  which  the  class-requirements  would  be 
made more stringent and a product model that is in class B will be 'rescaled' to e.g. class E. A 
vast  majority  of  respondents  supported  this  option.  However,  manufacturers  and  retailers 
(both  interest  groups  and  individual  companies)  did  not  hold  a  uniform  view  on  the  issue, 
their answers ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.71  

The periodic rescaling means that there may be a transition period in which old (from before 
the  scaling)  and  new  labels  (rescaled)  would  be  present.  Having  an  overlap  in  the  market 
between  old  ‘A’  and  new  ‘A’  was  seen  as  undesirable  by  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation, in particular by industry and consumer interest groups72. An overlap is likely to 
confuse consumers and lead to sales of less efficient appliances than otherwise, although it is 
impossible to quantify by how much. The solution is to shorten any overlap period, but that 
means a different approach in supplying and affixing labels is needed than the present one (at 

68 

69 

70 

71 
72 

Economic lifetime includes consumer behaviour aspects such as replacing a product before the end of 
its technical lifetime 
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes 
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014. First phase of the study 
Cf. minutes of the stakeholder meeting on 19 February 2014, in Annex 2. Stakeholders also rejected this 
during  the  consultation,  most  of  them  strongly,  cf.  Ecofys,  Background  document  II:  Survey  results. 
p.52 and Annex I, p.37 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.52 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.52 

29 

 
                                                 
present from a certain date manufactures put a label in the box they ship to dealers; dealers 
affix  the  label  supplied  by  manufactures;  the  label  remains  on  the  shop  floor  as  long  the 
specific appliance to which it is attached is not sold). Further detail on the transition period is 
provided in Annex 8. Periodic rescaling would take place every 5-10 years. 

Figure 5 : A-G label (left), numeric label (middle) and reverse numeric label (right) 

Measure 1B: Numeric label 

The  Energy  Labelling  Directive  would  be  amended  so  that  a  numeric  label  (see  figure  5) 
would  be  applied  for  all  products.  The  classes  in  the  initial  label  would  be  indicated  by 
numbers ranging from zero on top to e.g. 100 at the bottom, the lower number the better the 
energy efficiency. At the introduction of the label the top classes would be indicated in grey 
and be unused so that the label allows room for technological improvement. The level of the 
zero  class  should  be  at  or  close  to  the  theoretical  best  possible  efficiency.  In  the  case  of 
technological  improvement  some  or  all  of  the  grey  classes  would  be  made  available  and  a 
number of classes at the bottom of the label would be removed; the colour scale would thus 
move up in the label. The normal transition phase after such an update of the label would be 
less  confusing  for  consumers  as  each  product  remains  in  its  existing  class  (although  the 
assigned  colour  and  the  class  position  in  the  colour  scale  do  change).  Thus,  no  special 
transition  period  as  in  measure  1A  is  necessary.  Stakeholders  from  industry  and 
environmental  NGOs  suggested  further  exploring  this  option.73  In  the  public  consultation 
stakeholders tended to disagree with moving to an open ended scale on the label such as in 

73 

Arditi,  Meli  &  Toulouse,  Revising  EU  energy  label:  evolution  or  revolution?,  ECEEE  summer  study 
proceedings 2013 

30 

 
 
                                                 
this  option,  except  for  respondents  from  industry  interest  groups  who  were  more  positive 
about it.74 

Measure 1C: Reverse numeric label 

The Energy Labelling Directive would be amended so that a reverse numeric label (see figure 
5) would be applied for all products. The classes in the label would be indicated by numbers 
ranging  initially  from  seven  on  top  to  one  at  the  bottom,  the  higher  number  the  better  the 
energy efficiency. In the case of technological improvement additional classes 8, 9, etc. would 
be  added  on  top  and  an  equivalent  number  of  classes  at  the  bottom  of  the  label  would  be 
removed;  the  colour  scale  would  remain  to  show  its  seven  colours,  with  dark  green  for  the 
(new)  best  class.  The  normal  transition  phase  after  such  update  of  the  label  would  be  less 
confusing for consumers as each product remains in its existing class (although the assigned 
colour and the class position in the colour scale do change). Thus, no special transition period 
as in measure 1A is necessary. In the public consultation, most respondents across all groups 
disagreed  to  some  extent  with  this  option75.  However,  in  the  consultation  meeting  of  19 
February 2014 several stakeholders indicated this was an interesting option to explore further.   

For the problem of 'Increase in size of appliances' three possible measures are identified on 
the  basis  of  the  evaluation  study.  Measures  2  and  3  presented  below  are  alternatives,  both 
addressing  the  feedback  from  the  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  who 
would prefer to focus on both energy efficiency and energy consumption, but with a stronger 
focus  on  energy  consumption  than  at  present.76  Measure  2  attempts  to  improve  the  way 
absolute energy consumption of appliances is communicated through the label; measure 3 is 
more ambitious and uses the current strength of the label design and changes the mechanics 
behind it, i.e. which products are assigned to which classes. Measure 4 addresses the problem 
by providing extra information in addition to the label and is only useful in combination with 
one of the other measures since it has been found to work only for some products types and 
not for others, as explained below.  

Measure 2: More emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label 

The  label  layout  would  be  changed  in  order  to  put  more  emphasis  on  the  indication  of  the 
absolute  energy  consumption,  currently  indicated  in  a  box  with  the  indication  "XYZ 
kWh/annum" (see figure 1 or figure 5). Because of the limited space on the label this measure 
would at the same time limit the amount of non-energy information on the label. 

Measure 3: Require for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a certain label class 

The  Energy  Labelling  Directive  would  specify  that  in  the  preparation  of  delegated  acts  it 
should  be  considered  on  a  product  by  product  basis  whether  for  larger  appliances  a  higher 
efficiency  (energy  use  per  amount  of  service,  such  as  the  screen  size  of  a  TV  or  the  load 
capacity of a washing machine) is required to reach certain classes on the label. Although this 
approach  could  already  be  applied  in  the  current  implementation  of  the  Directive,  in  the 
absence of a provision in the Energy Labelling Directive specifically addressing this, only for 
one product group has it been possible to agree on such approach77.  

74 
75 
76 
77 

Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. Annex I, p.40 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.53 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.42  
For  lighting  products  predominantly  used  in  household  lighting  (providing  less  than  1300  lumens  of 
light),  the  energy  label  class  is  determined  according  to  a  formula  which  makes  it  more  difficult  for 
lamps with more lumens to obtain good classes.  

31 

 
                                                 
Measure 4: Provide monetary information 

Dealers would be required to display the cumulative annual running cost of the appliance due 
to energy and any other resource consumption either alongside the purchase cost or as part of 
the overall life cycle cost for consumers (purchase cost plus cumulative annual running cost). 
A  standardised  methodology  to  calculate  the  cumulative  annual  running  cost  would  be 
defined at European level, while the input values for the specific parameters used in it would 
be different per Member State. The Commission would arrange a webtool, in which dealers 
can enter their geographic location and the specific energy consumption indicated on the label 
of the product. The webtool would then provide the dealer with the cumulative annual running 
cost. National parameters such electricity prices are available to the Commission and can be 
regularly  updated.  Consumer  and  environmental interest  groups  support  this  measure,  while 
most manufacturers do not78. Trials were done in Norway79 and the UK80. They indicated that 
this  measure  only  had  effect  for  appliances  with  high  energy  consumption  such  as  washer-
driers  and  tumble  driers.  Therefore,  this  measure  would  apply  only  to  product  groups  with 
high energy consumption81. 

6.1.2.  Measures to address problems related to both Energy Labelling and Ecodesign 

For  the  problems  of  'Too  low  level  of  ambition  for  a  number  of  product  measures',  'Long 
rulemaking  processes'  and  'Weak  enforcement'  two  measures  have  been  identified  that  can 
address  more  than  one  of  these  problems  at  once.  The  evaluation  study  recommended 
establishing  a  mandatory  product  registration  database,  presented  below  as  measure  5,  of 
which the data can be used to address all three problems. An alternative is measure 6 which 
does not require changes in legislation and also provides data, but it addresses the problems to 
a  lesser  extent  and  cannot  provide  the  type  of  data  needed  to  address  the  problem  of  weak 
enforcement. 

Measure 5: Mandatory product registration database 

involve  any  additional  generation  by  manufacturers  of 

A database would be established at EU level, under the management of the Commission, in 
which manufacturers would have to register their models before placing them on the market. 
They would need to provide the technical documentation and indicate all equivalent models; 
the detail of what should be registered in the database is provided in Annex 7. This measure 
information  or 
would  not 
documentation, but only registering in the database information that they are already required 
to  generate  (and  provide  on  request).  The  Commission  and  the  national  market  surveillance 
authorities  would  have  access  to  this  database.  This  would  allow  the  national  market 
surveillance  authorities  quick  access  to  the  technical  information  necessary  for  their 
inspections.  Thus,  they  could  save  the  time  that  they  are  currently  spending  on  contacting 
manufacturers  for  this  information,  and  use  it  on  core  enforcement  actions,  including 
checking  compliance  of  dealers  with  energy  labelling.  In  the  context  of  the  revision  of  the 
Directive on harmonisation of requirements for radio equipment, which falls under the same 
market  surveillance  regime  as  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling,  it  was  estimated  that  a 

78 
79 
80 
81 

Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.57 
http://www.greenudge.no/en/studier/artikkel-under-studier/ 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350282/John_Lewis_trial_report_010914FINAL.pdf 
For the purposes of this impact assessment: tumble driers and water heating equipment. Washer-driers 
are  a  niche  product  not  included  in  the  modeling used  for  this  impact  assessment  (see  Annex  5).  For 
space  heaters,  another  product  group  with  high  energy  consumption,  the  model  indicates  that  overall 
life  cycle  cost  do  not  decrease  for  more  efficient  models  (further  explanation  is  in  section  7.2.2)  and 
thus providing monetary information would not encourage purchase of more efficient products. 

32 

 
                                                 
registration  database  could  result  in  an  estimated  overall  gain  of  up  to  10-15%  in 
time/resources  for  market  surveillance  authorities82.  Based  on  the  experience  of  such  a 
database in Australia, which has higher compliance rates for an otherwise similar policy, this 
measure  is  expected  to  improve  compliance  rates  by  6%-point  and  reduce  energy  savings 
losses as a result of non-compliance by 3%-point (see Annex 5). The costs are estimated to be 
approximately € 3 million investment to establish the database, € 300.000 annual maintenance 
costs  for  the  EU  budget,  and  €  3  million  per  year  for  manufacturers  for  the  clerical  task  of 
entering the information in the database (they already have the information, see further Annex 
9). 

Although the database is established at EU level, this measure does not lead to any changes in 
the  competence  of  national  authorities  with  regard  to  market  surveillance.  The  Commission 
merely facilitates the establishment and maintenance of the database. If a market surveillance 
authority  finds  a  product  in  a  shop  that  is  not  registered  in  the  database,  that  authority  can 
immediately  start  a  non-compliance  case  or  take  the  product  off  the  market  in  case  the 
manufacturer  cannot  be  contacted.  This  measure  is  expected  to  work  well  especially  in 
combination with measure 9 on joint enforcement actions, as the latter is expected to increase 
the  budget  and  level  of  enforcement  activities  and  would  allow  to  undertake  joint  action  to 
address a potential situation in which a significant share of product models is not registered in 
the  database.  This  measure  can  also  be  enhanced  by  developing  a  digital  application  for 
consumers to check the product registration database and report any absence of a product to 
the market surveillance authorities.  

At the same time the product registration database provides the Commission with up to date 
information  on  the  energy  efficiency  and  other  significant  environmental  impacts  of  new 
products, which can be used in the rulemaking process to establish the appropriate ambition 
level of requirements. Although the database does not include data on sales that preparatory 
studies  usually  include,  the  most  important  is  the  data  on  the  efficiency  levels  that  are 
economically  feasible  and  already  available  for  the  products  on  the  market.  Such  data  is 
particularly important for energy labelling, where in the absence of such data the risk is that 
the level of ambition for the top classes is set at a too low level, and as a result energy labels 
will have to be revised early and thus frequently. The availability of up to date information 
prevents delays in the rulemaking process that are due to a need to procure third party data to 
update  outdated  data.  A  little  more  than  half  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation 
this  measure,  consisting  mainly  of  government  and  surveillance  bodies, 
supported 
environmental  interest  groups  and  one  quarter  of  industry  interest  groups  that  responded  on 
this topic83. 

Similar databases exist in other EU harmonisation legislation (cosmetics84, noise85 and radio 
equipment86;  for  other  sectors  the  Commission  is  also  looking  into  this  as  part  of  its  e-
Compliance initiative87) and in other jurisdictions88.  

82 
83 
84 

85 

SWD(2012) 329 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.76 and 79 
Regulation 1223/2009 requires prior to placing on the market the notification to the Commission of the 
category  and  name(s)  of  the  product,  contact  details  of  responsible  and  physical  person,  country  of 
placing on the market and country origin in case of import and presence of certain substances and any 
potentially necessary medical treatment. 
Directive  2000/14/EC  requires  the  collection  of  noise  data  for  informed  consumer  choice  and  for  the 
assessment  of  new  technological  development  and  the  need  for  further  legislative  action.  The  data  is 
collected through a requirement to send a copy of the EC declaration of conformity to the Commission. 
The database is maintained by the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/noise-
outdoor-equipment/database/index_en.htm 

33 

 
                                                 
Measure 6: Expand the database study 

The existing project in which a contractor, for six product groups, establishes and manages an 
energy-related  product  database89  with  energy  and  significant  other  environmental  data  on 
models available on the EU market would be replicated for all products covered by ecodesign 
and energy labelling regulations, at present more than 20. Since such data would be collected 
from  publicly  available  sources,  rather 
information  from 
manufacturers,  it  would  not  be  comprehensive  and  less  up  to  date  than  the  data  collected 
through  a  product  registration  database,  but  nevertheless  of  use  to  address  the  problem  of 
ambition  levels  of  measures.  Since  such  study  cannot  collect  the  technical  information 
necessary  for  inspections  (notably  test  reports that  are  held  by  manufacturers),  this  measure 
cannot support market surveillance authorities in improving enforcement. 

through  systematic 

than 

On the basis of the evaluation study, additional measures have been identified that specifically 
address  the  problem  of  'Too  low  level  of  ambition  for  a  number  of  product  measures'  The 
Ecodesign Directive contains a provision that specifies the level at which requirements should 
be set. The application of this provision could be refined or, more ambitiously addressing the 
problem,  the  provision  could  be  changed.  These  are  two  alternative  measures  further 
described below. 

Measure 7: Use learning curves for least life cycle cost  

Annex  II  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  contains  a  requirement  to  aim  at  setting  the  level  of 
ecodesign  requirements  for  energy  efficiency  at  the  life  cost  minimum  for  end-users.  It 
requires adapting such level as a result of sensitivity analysis covering relevant factors. Under 
this  measure  in  such  sensitivity  analysis  the  application  of  “learning  curves”,  i.e.  the 
consideration  of  decreasing  production  costs  over  time,  would  be  included.  A  majority  of 
respondents to the public consultation supported this measure, though manufacturers and their 
interest groups were divided on it90. 

Measure 8: Change least life cycle cost requirement  

The  requirement  in  Annex  II  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  to  aim  setting  the  ecodesign 
requirements for energy efficiency at the life cost minimum for end-users would be changed 
into setting the requirements at the break-even point, i.e. the point where the life-cycle costs 
of a more efficient product are equal to the life cycle costs of the least efficient product (see 
section 4.2.2 for more detail on life cycle cost). Respondents to the public consultation were 
divided:  government  bodies  and  environmental  interest  groups  supported  this  measure; 
manufacturers are not in favour91. 

86 

87 

88 

89 
90 
91 

The  proposal  to  revise  Directive  1999/5/EC  requires,  for  categories  of  equipment  affected  by  a  low 
level  of  compliance,  that  prior  to  their  placing  on  the  market,  they  are  registered  in  a  central  system 
arranged by the Commission and that the allocated registration number is affixed to the product. 
The Commission announced in the Communication on “A vision for the internal market for industrial 
products” of February 2013 that "It will [..] launch an initiative on e-Compliance whereby compliance 
with Union harmonisation legislation can be demonstrated electronically and in several languages, for 
example  through  e-labelling,  digital  market  surveillance  and  electronic  declarations  of  conformity  in 
all official Union languages." Work on the e-Compliance initiative is on-going and in a less advance 
stage than that of this impact assessment.  
Including  Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  India,  South  Korea,  USA  and  Vietnam;  cf.  Ecofys  final 
technical report, p.184-185 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/tender/doc/2013/tender_specifications_eaci_iee_2013_002.pdf 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.72 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.71-72 

34 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
Further, five additional measures have been identified that specifically address the problem of 
'Weak  enforcement'.  These  measures  can  complement  each  other,  except  that  measure  13, 
establishing  an  EU  market  surveillance  authority  changes  the  way  market  surveillance  is 
organised  for  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  to  such  extent  that  measures  9  and  10  are  not 
applicable  in  such  case.  The  potential  measure  for  the  Commission  to  enact  infringement 
procedures against Member States that do not carry out sufficient market surveillance activity 
is not included. This is because this potential is limited, as it is not obvious how to establish a 
benchmark for a sufficient level of market surveillance. The Commission proposed as one of 
its 20 actions in its market surveillance action plan92 to develop key performance benchmarks 
for market surveillance, but even for the consumer products safety area where there is more 
experience  in  collecting  data  on  market  surveillance  it  is  proving  difficult  to  identify  and 
agree with Member States relevant enforcement indicators, let alone benchmarks. More than 
two  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  action  plan  the  action  is  still  on-going  without  a 
foreseeable  indication  of  the  outcome.  Market  surveillance  is  an  area  where  Member  States 
are keen to decide themselves how, where and how much effort to invest. 

Measure 9: Support joint actions 

Joint surveillance and enforcement actions by market surveillance authorities from across the 
EU would be supported under the Horizon2020 programme in which the national authorities 
would cooperate in joint testing and other cross-border activities. A little more than half of the 
respondents to the public consultation consider that the current mechanisms for cooperation in 
market surveillance between administrations are not effective and support further cooperation 
beyond the Administrative Cooperation (ADCO) meetings and the Intelligent Energy Europe 
Ecopliant project93. These joint actions could address both non-compliance by suppliers and 
by  dealers,  although  because  of  the  cross-border  dimension  they  are  more  likely  to  address 
supplier obligations.     

Measure 10: Align with market surveillance regulation 

The Directives would be aligned with the proposal for a new market surveillance regulation94, 
which  aims,  inter  alia,  at  eliminating  overlaps  between  general  legislation  on  market 
surveillance  and  sector-specific  legislation.  Article  3(2)-(4)  and  Article  7  of  the  Ecodesign 
Directive  and  Article  3(2)-(4)  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  would  be  deleted  and  a 
specific  article  on  enforcement  would  be  inserted  in  both  Directives  stating  that  Member 
States shall ensure that the authorities responsible for market surveillance verify compliance 
according  to  the  market  surveillance  regulation.  Since  the  present  overlaps  concern 
enforcement of supplier and dealer obligations, such a measure could address non-compliance 
by both actors. Respondents to the public consultation indicated that it is necessary that the 
market  surveillance  regulation  applies  fully  to  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  and  double 
requirements should be avoided95. 

Measure 11: Streamline legal provisions 

The  requirements  for  suppliers  and  dealers  in the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  would  be  less 
detailed  in  order  to  avoid  overlap  and/or  contradiction  with  the  delegated  acts  and  the 
requirements  for  drafting  delegated  acts  would  explicitly  specify  that  the  necessary  details 
have to be included in delegated regulations. In addition, the Directive would be changed to a 

92 
93 
94 
95 

COM(2013)76 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.78-79 
COM(2013) 75 final 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.78 

35 

 
                                                 
Regulation,  because  transposition  creates  still  a risk  for  further  overlap  and/or  contradiction 
between  the  general  framework  and  its  delegated  regulations96.  Removing  and  preventing 
such  overlaps  and  contradictions  improves  enforcement,  because  it  allows  to  pursue  certain 
non-compliance  cases  that  otherwise  would  not  be  considered  worth  pursuing  due  to  legal 
uncertainty97.  The  present  overlaps  in  energy  labelling  provisions  concern  requirements  for 
both  suppliers  and  dealers  and  therefore  this  measure  can  address  non-compliances  by  both 
actors. The instrument of a regulation seems in any case the better instrument since the main 
element of the policy that requires detailed implementation by Member States is enforcement 
of the delegated acts, for which requirements are detailed in those delegated acts and in the 
market  surveillance  regulation.  In  options  that  require  revision  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive, 
also  that  Directive  would  be  revised  into  a  Regulation  for  the  same  reasons.  Stakeholders 
pointed  out  unclear  formulations  in  legal  texts,  notably  the  format  of  information  to  be 
provided to consumers and authorities98. 

Measure 12: Third party certification 

The  Energy  Labelling  and  Ecodesign  Directives  would  be  amended  so  that  for  all  products 
covered, a third party has to certify the compliance before a model is placed on the market (at 
present  self-certification  applies  and  third  party  certification  is  only  an  option  in  the 
Ecodesign  Directive  for  products  where  it  is  duly  justified  and  proportionate  to  the  risk99). 
This would only address non-compliance of suppliers, not for dealers. Not many stakeholders 
supported this option in the  public  consultation. In particular the  heating industry supported 
it100. 

Measure 13: EU market surveillance authority 

Instead  of  market  surveillance  by  the  Member  States,  it  would  be  undertaken  by  an  EU 
authority, to be newly set up. This measure was already analysed in the impact assessment for 
the product safety and market surveillance package101, but not selected, because would entail 
significant  costs  due  to  the  need  for  the  establishment  of  coordination  infrastructures  and 
capacity, which currently do not exist at EU level. Moreover, in the current impact assessment 
this option includes expanding the scope of the Directives to all products (measure 14), which 
would likely  lead to  product-specific  requirements that cannot  be tested on the product in a 
laboratory, but instead requires paper trail evidence throughout the life-cycle of the product. 
This requires in any case new capacities to be developed. Therefore, the consideration to do 
this through an EU authority merits specific consideration in this context. A little more than 

96 

97 

98 
99 

100 
101 

The  change  to  a  Regulation  is  possible,  because  the  main  requirements  of  the  Energy  Labelling 
Directive (and the Ecodesign Directive) are on suppliers and dealers and even those are in fact set out in 
the  necessary  detail  in  the  delegated  (implementing  in  the  case  of  ecodesign)  acts.  The  main 
requirement  for  Member  States  concerns  enforcement.  The  provisions  for  such  enforcement  are, 
however,  set  out  in  the  market  surveillance  regulation.  In  the  transposition  of  the  Energy  Labelling 
Directive  in  2010-2011  most  Member  States  simply  copied  the  provision  one-to-one  in  their  national 
legislation. 
An authority may find that a non-compliance is significant from the consumer and energy savings point 
of view, but nevertheless not pursue the case if there is some ambiguity in the legal framework and thus 
a significant chance that a Court would not uphold its non-compliance decision.  
Ecofys final technical report, p.161 
At present third party certification only applies for ecodesign of boilers, for which such requirements 
were  also  in  Council  Directive  92/42/EEC  of  21  May  1992  on  efficiency  requirements  for  new  hot-
water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels. 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.80 
SWD(2013)33 final; option 3D 

36 

 
                                                 
half  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  across  interest  groups  supported  this 
measure specifically for ecodesign and energy labelling102.  

6.1.3.  Measures to address problems related to (predominantly) Ecodesign 

For  the  problem  of  'Little  reduction  of  non-energy  environmental  impacts'  two  alternative 
measures are identified. Measure 14 was recommended by the evaluation study, whereas the 
alternative, measure 15, is much more ambitious and also explored by the evaluation study. 

Measure  14:  The  impact  categories,  the  characterisation  factors,  the  inventory  database  and 
the  assumptions  in  the  modelling  of  the  Methodology  for  the  Ecodesign  of  Energy-related 
Products (MEErP)103 and its Ecoreport tool would be reviewed and were necessary updated to 
better fit the analysis of material impacts. 

Measure  15:  The  scope  of  both  Directives  would  be  extended  to  include  further  products 
beyond  energy-related  products.  About  one  fifth  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation 
supported  this  measure  for  Energy  Labelling,  while  about  two-thirds  opposed  it.  For  the 
Ecodesign Directive there was somewhat more support: one third of respondents supported it, 
while a little over half opposed it.104 The European Parliament has called on the Commission 
to propose such a scope extension for the Ecodesign Directive.105 In addition, the scope of the 
Energy  Labelling  Directive  would  be  extended  beyond  the  use  phase  to  display  life-cycle 
impacts  on  the  label  since  the  use  phase  of  non-energy  related  products  is  usually  the  least 
important in terms of energy consumption. In the public consultation, government bodies and 
environmental interest groups favoured such additional information. Manufacturers, retailers 
and consumer interest groups did not support this106. Rather than extending the scope of the 
Directives, there may be other policy instruments than Ecodesign and Energy Labelling that 
can address the underlying problem for these products. This will be taken into account in the 
assessment of the impacts. 

102 
103 

104 
105 
106 

for 

Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.76 
Methodology 
Ecodesign 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/methodology/index_en.htm 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.28-31 
P7_TA(2012)0223 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.57 

Energy-related 

the 

of 

Products: 

37 

 
                                                 
The graph below provides an overview of how each of the measures described above links to 
the problem drivers. 

Problems 

Drivers for which measures 
are identified 

Measures 

Reduced effectiveness 
of labels following the 
introduction of A+ 
and up classes 

Label layout laid down in 
recast Energy Labelling 
Directive 

Increase in size of 
appliances 

A share of consumers interpret 
the label rating as absolute 
consumption 

Easier for larger appliances to 
be made more efficient and 
achieve higher label classes 

Long rulemaking 
processes 

Limited and outdated data  

Too low level of 
ambition for a number 
of product measures 

Least life cycle cost criterion is 
poor guidance 

Insufficient national resources 
made available 

Overlap of legal provisions 

1. Change the label scale 
layout 

2. More emphasis on absolute 
energy consumption on the 
label 

3. Require for larger appliances 
a higher efficiency to reach a 
certain label class 

4. Provide monetary 
information 

5. Mandatory product 
registration database 

6. Expand the database study 

7. Use learning curves for least 
life cycle cost 

8. Change least life cycle cost 
requirement  

9. Support joint actions 

10. Align with market 
surveillance regulation 

Weak enforcement 

Difficult access to technical 
documentation  

11. Streamline legal provisions 

Insufficient cross-border 
cooperation 

MEErP does not sufficiently 
capture some impacts 

Scope of the Directives 
excludes non-energy-related 
products 

Little reduction of 
non-energy 
environmental 
impacts 

12. Third party certification 

13. EU market surveillance 
authority 

14. Review MEErP 

15. Extension of the scope to 
product groups other than 
energy-related products 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. 

Policy options  

Policy  options  were  constructed  combining  different  sets  of  measures.  The  policy  options 
represent different degrees of change to the existing policy framework and ambition levels to 
address the problems. One option would not require changes to the existing legal framework 
and three others requiring changes to the legal framework in different degrees. In addition, the 
options  changing  the  legal  framework  contain  a  suboption  of  merging  the  two  legal 
frameworks  into  one  instrument,  which  could  address  identified  incoherencies  between 
ecodesign and energy labelling. Box 1 gives an overview of the options, which are described 
in detail further below. 

Box 1: Overview of the policy options 

Option 0: No change ("baseline option")  

Option 1: Improvements within the existing regulatory framework 

Option 1+: Option 1 combined with some improvements in the legal framework, notably for 
energy labelling 

Option 2: Significant reform of both ecodesign and energy labelling 

Option  3:  Comprehensive  reform  of  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  extending  the  scope  to 
non-energy related products and to centralise market surveillance 

Suboption  to  option  1+,  2  and  3:  merge  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  into  one  legal 
instrument 

The  possibility  to  repeal  one  or  both  Directives  and  their  implementing/delegated  acts  was 
discarded, because it would not solve the basic problem. In addition it would not be consistent 
with policy objectives and the target of the Energy Efficiency Directive, which is unlikely to 
be  achievable  without  legislation  on  energy  efficiency  of  products.  In  the  absence  of  EU 
legislation,  Member  States  would  regulate  leading  to  divergent  national  provisions  and 
procedures,  and  thus  undue  costs  for  industry  (and  consumers)  and  obstacles  to  the  free 
movement  of  goods  within  the  EU.  The  vast  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation, in particular consumers, agreed that minimum energy performance standards for 
products are necessary. An overwhelming majority of respondents to the public consultation 
across all groups strongly disagreed with the option of abolishing the label107. Member States 
rejected the possibility to stop working on ecodesign and energy labelling when in the Energy 
Council in June 2014 the Commission raised this question in light of the criticism during the 
European Parliament election campaign. 

6.2.1.  Option 0: no changes, baseline 

This option does not address the problems, but represents the baseline, as set out in section 
4.3, with which other options can be compared. There is not much support from stakeholders 
for  this  option:  the  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  think  that  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive 
needs to be changed and a large majority of respondents to the public consultation across all 
types  of  respondents  agreed  that  A+++-D  class  is  more  difficult  to  understand  than  the 
previously used A-G scale. 

107 

Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.9 and 53 

39 

 
                                                 
6.2.2.  Option 1: Improvements within the existing regulatory framework 

Since for almost all problems there is one measure identified that could address the problem, 
at  least  in  part,  without  making  changes  to  the  existing  legal  framework,  this  option  was 
identified and constructed of those measures that require no changes  to the Energy Labelling 
Directive or the Ecodesign Directive. The only problem this option cannot address is the one 
of reduced effectiveness of labels, which requires changes to the Energy Labelling Directive. 

Problem category 

Measure(s) addressing it 

Reduced effectiveness of labels  

none 

Increase in size of appliances 

2. More emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label 

Long rulemaking processes 

6. Expand the database study (ecodesign and energy labelling) 

Too low level of ambition of measures 

6. Expand the database study (ecodesign and energy labelling) 

7. Use learning curves for least life cycle cost  

Weak enforcement 

9. Support joint actions 

Non-energy environmental impacts 

14. Review MEErP 

6.2.3.  Option  1+:  Option  1  combined  with  some  improvements  in  the  legal  framework, 

notably for energy labelling 

This option was identified to address the problem of reduced effectiveness of labels, the only 
one that cannot be addressed by option 1. Since the measure addressing this problem requires 
changes to the Energy Labelling Directives, a number of other measures that require changes 
to  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and  that  are  expected  to  further  or  better  address  the 
problems  compared  to  the  measures  in  option  1  were  also  included  in  this  option.  For  the 
problem of 'increase in size of appliances' the non-legal measure of putting more emphasis on 
absolute energy consumption on the label was left out as the alternative measure of requiring 
for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a certain label class is expected to address 
this problem better, because it uses the strength of the label (the green-to-red colour scale) to 
address  the  problem.  The  additional  emphasis  on  absolute  energy  consumption  on  the  label 
has a risk of diluting the effect of that very strength. 

In  this  option  the  product  registration  database  would  only  apply  to  products  covered  by 
energy  labelling.  For  these  products,  the  problem  of  weak  enforcement  that  the  registration 
database  addresses  is  more  prevalent.  Energy  labels  cover  consumer  products  for  which  the 
number of equivalent models is larger: in the consumer products sector there are "no-brand" 
manufacturers producing for third companies, which then put their own brand on the product 
and are responsible for placing it on the market. The "no-brand" manufacturer can supply the 
same  ("equivalent")  product  to  different  suppliers  who  market  it  under  their  own  brand. 
Further,  models  of  different  colours  are  usually  also  equivalent  and  more  common  for 
domestic appliances. Since the product registration database is included for labelled products 
in this option, the alternative measure (no 6) would only apply to products covered only by 
ecodesign. 

40 

 
 
 
This option includes one change to the Ecodesign Directive, i.e. aligning it with the proposal 
for  the  market  surveillance  regulation,  which  implies  deleting  several  clauses  from  the 
Ecodesign Directive as they are already addressed by the proposal for the market surveillance 
regulation.  Aligning  only  energy  labelling  and  not  ecodesign  is  not  desirable,  since  market 
surveillance activities often address both at the same time. 

Problem category 

Measure(s) addressing it 

Reduced effectiveness of labels  

1. Change the label scale layout to A) Alphabetic A-G label; B) 
Numeric label; or C) Reverse numeric label 

Increase in size of appliances 

Long rulemaking processes 

Too low level of ambition of measures 

Weak enforcement 

3.  Require  for  larger  appliances  a  higher  efficiency  to  reach  a 
certain label class 

4. Provide monetary information 

5. Mandatory product registration database (labelling only) 

6. Expand the database study (ecodesign only) 

5. Mandatory product registration database (labelling only) 

7. Use learning curves for least life cycle cost  

5. Mandatory product registration database (labelling only) 

9. Support joint actions 

10. Align with market surveillance regulation 

11. Streamline legal provisions 

Non-energy environmental impacts 

14. Review MEErP 

6.2.4.  Option 2: Significant reform of both ecodesign and energy labelling 

This  option  was  identified  aiming  to  address  all  problems  in  an  ambitious  way  without  a 
complete overhaul of the legislative framework such as would be caused e.g. by changes to 
the  scope  of  the  Directives  or  to  the  competences  on  market  surveillance.  Thus,  this  option 
includes  the  most  ambitious  measures,  except  for  measures  8  (change  least  life  cycle  cost 
requirement), 13 (EU market surveillance authority) and 15 (extension of scope to non-energy 
related products). 

Measure 8 of changing the least life cycle cost requirement to a break-even point requirement 
is not included in this option, because it is a radical change, as it will remove from the market 
products  that  are  the  least  cost  options  with  expected  negative  effects  for  in  particular 
vulnerable consumers. It will also likely raises the ambition level for ecodesign to such extent 
that energy labels may not be useful anymore: if the requirement banning products from the 
market is set a high level, the differentiation in energy efficiency of the remaining products on 
the  market  is  likely  too  small,  which,  given  margins  of  error  in  testing  products,  does  not 
allow  to  distinguish  that  differentiation  through  a  label  with  classes  (see  section  4.2.2.  for 
more details on life cycle cost). 

41 

 
 
 
In  this  option  the  product  registration  database  would  apply  both  to  products  covered  by 
energy labelling and those covered only by ecodesign108. 

Problem category 

Measure(s) addressing it 

Reduced effectiveness of labels  

1. Change the label scale layout to A) Alphabetic A-G label; B) 
Numeric label; or C) Reverse numeric label 

Increase in size of appliances 

3.  Require  for  larger  appliances  a  higher  efficiency  to  reach  a 
certain label class 

4. Provide monetary information 

Long rulemaking processes 

5. Mandatory product registration database 

Too low level of ambition of measures 

5. Mandatory product registration database 

7. Use learning curves for least life cycle cost  

5. Mandatory product registration database 

9. Support joint actions 

Weak enforcement 

10. Align with market surveillance regulation 

11. Streamline legal provisions 

12. Third party certification 

Non-energy environmental impacts 

14. Review MEErP 

6.2.5.  Option  3:  Comprehensive  reform  of  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  extending  the 
scope to non-energy related products and to centralise market surveillance 

This option was identified aiming to address other environmental impacts than energy use in a 
comprehensive way. Under this option the framework Directives (which would be changed to 
Regulations)  would  be  revised  to  extend  their  scope  to  product  groups  other  than  energy-
related  products,  and  for  Energy  Labelling  (as  already  is  the  case  for  Ecodesign)  to  all  life 
cycle  phases  and  all  environmental  impacts.  The  product-specific  requirements  that  would 
follow  from  such  scope  extension  would  be  such  that,  for  certain  products  and  certain 
environmental  impacts,  they  cannot  be  tested  on  the  product  in  a  laboratory,  but  instead 
require chain of custody evidence throughout the life-cycle. This requires a different approach 
to  market  surveillance  than  currently  undertaken  by  the  Member  States  under  EU  product 
harmonisation legislation. Therefore, this option includes centralising market surveillance at 
the EU level. 

108 

This measure is presented as being implemented through revision of the Ecodesign Directive, though it 
may also be possible to implement it through a stand-alone regulation. 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
Problem category 

Measure(s) addressing it 

Reduced effectiveness of labels  

1. Change the label scale layout to A) Alphabetic A-G label; B) 
Numeric label; or C) Reverse numeric label 

Increase in size of appliances 

3.  Require  for  larger  appliances  a  higher  efficiency  to  reach  a 
certain label class 

4. Provide monetary information 

Long rulemaking processes 

5. Mandatory product registration database 

Too low level of ambition of measures 

Weak enforcement 

5. Mandatory product registration database 

8. Change least life cycle cost requirement 

5. Mandatory product registration database 

11. Streamline legal provisions 

12. Third party certification 

13. EU market surveillance authority 

Non-energy environmental impacts 

15. Extension of the scope to product groups other than energy-
related products 

6.2.6. 

Suboption  to  Options  1+,  2  and  3:  merge  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  into  one 
legal instrument 

This  option  was  identified  aiming  to  simplify  the  legal  framework  and  to  address  the 
incoherencies between ecodesign and energy labelling referred to in section 4.2.3: the empty 
classes on some energy labels due to ecodesign requirements and the lack of a working plan 
and  a  formalised  stakeholder  forum  for  Energy  Labelling,  while  they  exist  under  the 
Ecodesign  Directive.  Under  this  option,  the  framework  Directives  would  be  merged  and 
revised  into  one  Regulation.  For  product  groups  where  there  are  currently  both  an 
implementing  measure  for  ecodesign  and  for  energy  labelling,  these  would  be  merged  into 
one implementing measure, thus reducing the number of implementing measures.  

43 

 
 
 
 
7. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

7.1. 

Approach 

The analysis of impacts was supported by modelling. The model used for the impact analysis 
study is the ecodesign impact accounting model developed by Van Holsteijn en Kemna B.V. 
(VHK), which incorporates the data from all preparatory studies and impact assessments done 
for ecodesign and energy labelling. The description of the model and how the measures are 
incorporate  in  the  model  is  provided  in  Annex  5.  The  main  model  parameters  identified  to 
influence  the  results  were  the  energy  prices  for  which  sensitivity  analysis  was  applied  by 
modelling and presenting results of two different assumptions as detailed in section 7.2.2. All 
cost and benefits are inflation-corrected and expressed in 'Euro 2010'. 

A specific study tested the consumer understanding and the effect on their purchase decisions 
of the different label layouts presented in section 6.1109. In terms of consumer understanding 
the  study  found  that  alphabetic  labels  scales  (A+++  to  D  and  A  to  G)  are  clearly  better 
understood by consumers than (reverse) numeric labels, as shown in figure 6. This confirms 
the initial literature research by the study finding evidence that consumers do not understand 
numerical scales as well as alphabetical scales. 

Figure 6: Percentage of respondents correctly identifying the most efficient of three models with an energy 
label. 'alphabetic' refers to the A-G label  

In  terms  of  effect  on  purchase  decisions  the  testing  of  the  four  labels  showed  a  slightly 
different trend: the ranking of the four labels was different for the test on televisions (figure 7) 
than  for  washing  machines  (Figure  figure  8).  The  A-G  label  scored  best  for  television,  but 
came second  for washing machines,  where the reverse numeric label scored  best.  When the 
result for both products is combined, as shown in table 1, the A-G label scores the best, with 
the reverse numeric label second and the numeric label scores lowest. That pattern confirms 
the findings on consumer behaviour in the first phase of the study, in which consumers where 
asked how much of a premium they were prepared to pay for a more efficient product when 
shown the labels. 

109 

London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes 
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014. Second phase of the study. 

44 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 7: Proportion that choose the most (TV1), middle (TV2), and least energy efficient television (TV3) 
by energy label. 'alphabetic' refers to the A-G label  

Figure  8:  Proportion  that  choose  the  most  (washing  machine  1),  middle  (washing  machine  2),  and  least 
energy efficient washing machine (3) by energy label. 'alphabetic' refers to the A-G label  

45 

 
 
 
 
Table  1:  Consumer  purchase  choices  for  different  label  layouts  (television  and  washing  machines 
combined) 

A+++ to D 

A-G 

Numeric 

reverse numeric 

(baseline) 

(measure 1A) 

(measure 1B) 

(measure 1C) 

Most efficient 
(baseline class A+++ to A+) 

Middle efficient 
(baseline class A+ to A) 

Least efficient 
(baseline class A to B) 

38% 

37% 

25% 

45% 

34% 

21% 

37% 

36% 

27% 

42% 

36% 

22% 

The  results  from  the  study  with  regard  to  purchase  behaviour  were  fed  into  the  model 
developed  by  VHK  referred  to  above  (detail  on  how  the  results  were  incorporated  in  the 
model is provided in Annex 5). 

7.2. 

Impacts of options 

7.2.1.  Environmental impact 

The  energy  consumption  trend  for  the  options  and  the  baseline  are  shown  in  figure  9.  The 
energy savings of the options in the year 2030 compared to the baseline are provided in table 
2,  broken  down  by  product  sector110.  These  results  only  cover  energy-related  products;  for 
other products that are also included in Option 3 additional analysis is provided further below. 
Further, for the sub-options concerning the layout of the label the additional impacts that have 
to be added for each of the suboptions to options 1+, 2 and 3 are provided in table 3. 

As can be seen from the results, Option 1, containing only non-legislative measures, already 
provides  significant  energy  savings  compared  to  the  baseline.  All  measures  included  in  this 
option  contribute  significantly  to  this  result111,  with  the  support  of  joint  actions  by  Member 
States through EU projects estimated to have the highest impact. 

Option 1+ provides further significant energy savings, mainly because the product registration 
database  reduces  non-compliance  rates  for  labelled  products  and  provides  better  up-to-date 
data  to  establish  requirements.  In  addition,  also  the  measure  requiring  higher  energy  label 
classes  for  larger  appliances  contributes  for  a  significant  part  of  the  further  savings.  The 
measure  requiring  the  provision  of  monetary  information  contributes  to  a  lesser  extent, 
because it only applies to some products, but is nevertheless of importance, because it applies 
to water heaters where significant further energy savings are achieved in this option. 

The  sub-option  of  the  A-G  label  would  provide  further  significant  energy  savings,  whereas 
the  reverse  numeric  label  would  do  so  to  a  much  lesser  extent.  The  numeric  label  would 
actually increase energy use compared to the baseline A+++ to D label, because the result of 
the consumer behaviour testing presented in section 7.1 showed that it was less effective than 
the current A+++ to D label. The impacts are directly related to the result of that behaviour 
testing presented in table 1 (further detail in Annex 5). The result of sub-option of the A-G 

110 

111 

These are simply the savings in the year 2030; they are not averaged over the entire modelling period 
nor cumulative over a multi-year period. 
Except the measure of reviewing the MEErP, which only affects non-energy environmental impacts. 

46 

 
 
                                                 
label  (minus  62  TWh/year  in  2030;  approximately  5  mtoe)  is  considerable  and  in  the  same 
order of magnitude, although less than either of the main measures to address non-compliance 
(the joint action and the product registration database).  The impacts of these suboptions apply 
in the same way to Options 2 and 3. 

Option 2 and Option 3 give higher energy savings than Option 1+, although the incremental 
savings  are  lower  than  the  differences  between  the  baseline,  Option  1  and  Option  1+.  The 
additional  savings  in  Option  2  mainly  result  from  higher  compliance  rates  of  products, 
because of the measure requiring third party certification and because the product registration 
database applies in this option also to products only covered by ecodesign. 

The additional savings for energy-related products in Option 3 are mainly the result of more 
ambitious  ecodesign  requirements,  because  the  aim  would  be  to  set  requirements  at  the  so-
called  break-even  point,  rather  than  at  the  least  life-cycle  cost  point.  The  somewhat 
unexpected result that this option only achieves modest additional energy savings compared 
to Option 2 can be explained by two factors. Firstly, the measure of applying learning curves 
in the least life cycle cost calculation in Options 1, 1+ and 2 already makes a significant step 
in the same direction as changing the requirement to break-even point. Secondly, the measure 
of applying learning curves combined with other measures in Option 2 already improve the 
average efficiency of certain product groups to such extent that limits of what is considered 
technologically  possible  are  being  reached  in  Option  2  for  a  number  of  product  groups: 
electric motors, ventilation units, air heaters and certain types of local heaters. The additional 
measure  of  applying  the  break-even  point  requirement  therefore  does  not  lead  to  additional 
energy savings for these product groups. 

Figure  9:  Primary  energy  of  entire  installed  stock  (TWh/a),  total  EU,  years  2015-2030.  Baseline  and 
Options 1, 1+, 2 and 3 (excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for option 3 do not take into 
account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text 

47 

 
 
 
Table 2: Primary energy use compared to the baseline, EU totals for year 2030. Excluding effects from any 
change in label layout. Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy 
related products, see text 

Entire installed stock 

Energy use, TWh/a, year 2030 

Base 

Opt1 

Opt1+ 

Opt2 

Opt3 

WATER HEATING 

SPACE HEATING 

SPACE COOLING 

VENTILATION 

LIGHTING 

ELECTRONICS 

FOOD PRESERVATION 

COOKING 

CLEANING 

INDUSTRY COMPONENTS 

ENERGY SECTOR 

TOTAL in TWh primary 

TOTAL  (in PJ primary) 

TOTAL  (in mtoe primary) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-54 

-64 

-7 

-37 

-26 

-9 

-19 

-8 

-13  

-70 

-4 

-122 

-116 

-129 

-135 

-134 

-144 

-12 

-38 

-47 

-15 

-28 

-10 

-26  

-71 

-4 

-14 

-55 

-54 

-20 

-36 

-13 

-29  

-87 

-8 

-16 

-71 

-56 

-22 

-42 

-16 

-31  

-102 

-9 

-312 

-488 

-579 

-643 

-1123 

-1759 

-2084 

-2316 

-27 

-42 

-50 

-55 

Table 3: Environmental impacts in 2030 for the different label layouts compared to the baseline A+++ to 
D label 

Energy use (TWh primary) 

GHG (Mt CO2-eq./y) 

A-G 

-62 

-9.6 

numeric  

reverse numeric  

+17 

+2.6 

-36 

-5.5 

of which falling under the ETS112 

-4.4 (46%) 

+1.2 (46%) 

-2.5 (45%) 

Impacts of the options on the main environmental impacts other than energy are given in table 
4 with additional impacts (applying to options 1+, 2 and 3) of greenhouse gas emissions of the 
sub-options  concerning  the  layout  of  the  label  presented  in  table  3.  As  regards  material 
efficiency,  the  review  of  the  MEErP  and  implementing  any  updates  as  result  of  that  review 
(included  in  Options  1,  1+  and  2)  is  likely  to  have  limited  impact,  since  the  MEErP  has 
recently been reviewed and updated to integrate some material efficiency parameters. Further, 
for a number of products some developments to reduce material use (and thus also waste) are 
already on-going, driven by cost reductions and technological change113. 

112 
113 

EU Emission Trading System 
One example of this is that the total amount (in mass) of waste of display (screens) in 2012 was higher 
than  the  amount  sold  (typical  ratio  across EU:  1.3 with Sweden  as  high  as 2.6). Source:  Weeeforum, 
Key figures report 2010-2012, 28 March 2014 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 4: Impacts in 2030 on greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions and water use compared 
to the baseline, excluding impacts from any change in label layout. 

Option 1 

Option 1+ 

Option 2 

Option 3* 

GHG (Mt CO2-eq./y) 

-45 

-75 

-87 

-94 

of which falling under the ETS114 

-27 (60%) 

-41 (55%) 

-49 (56%) 

-55 (59%) 

Direct NOx

115

 (kt NOx./y) 

Direct  water  use116  (million  m3 
/year) 

-18 

-139 

-27 

-206 

-28 

-206 

-29 

-206 

*Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text 

The  assessment  of  the  impact  for  an  extension  of  the  scope  in  Option  3  to  product  groups 
other  than  energy-related  products  is  complex,  because  of  the  variety  and  diversity  of 
products  and  environmental  impacts.  A  first  assessment  of  the  potential  for  reduction  of 
environmental  impacts  can  be  made  by  comparing  the  estimated  environmental  impact  of 
energy-related products with that of non-energy related products. 

The  use  of  energy-related  products  excluding  transport  equipment  causes  over  70%  of  EU 
energy  consumption117  and  approximately  50%  of  the  emissions  of  regulated  air-bound 
pollutants in the EU.118 The rest of energy use and air-bound emissions comes from transport, 
agriculture  and  direct  process  emissions  (from  industrial  processes,  solvents  and  waste. 
However,  for  some  other  environmental  impacts  such  as  water-bound  emissions  (heavy 
metals to water, eutrophication, etc.) the share for energy-related products is small and instead 
other  sources  are  dominant  (for  water-bound  emission  agriculture  and  urban  waste  water). 
However, a considerable part of environmental impacts could not be addressed by extending 
the scope to all products as a significant share of the impacts is caused by services. 

On the basis of the above, it is estimated that extending the scope of the Directives to cover all 
other product groups can potentially have twice as much environmental impact as at present. 
However, a range of environmental impacts of products other than energy-related products are 
already addressed through legislation. This is particularly the case for vehicles, for which CO2 
emissions119,  pollutant  emissions120,  end  of  life121  and  the  use  of  certain  refrigerants  in  air-
conditioning systems122 are addressed through other EU legislation, although their production, 
limited  extent. 
also  significant  in  environmental  impacts, 

is  regulated 

to  a  more 

114 

115 

116 
117  
118  

119 
120 
121 
122 

EU Emission Trading System. The GHG savings that fall under sectors of the ETS concern the savings 
in electricity consumption. 
For  dedicated water heaters, central heating  combi's  for water  heating,  and  central  heating boilers  for 
space  heating.  Note  that  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  affects  NOx  emissions  also  indirectly: 
through  energy  saving  for  product  groups  without  explicit  direct  NOx  emission-limits  and  indirectly 
through electricity savings (NOx from power plants). 
For washing machines and dishwashers. 
Direct and indirect (through electricity generation) energy use. 
Greenhouse gases (>60%), acidifying agents (NOx, SOx, NH3), persistent organic pollutants (POPs, e.g. 
dioxins and furans) & polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), air-bound heavy metals (Cd, Pb, As, 
etc.), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), particulate matter (PM).  For an overview 
per category based on Eurostat and data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) see Kemna, R.B.J., 
MEErP-Part 2,  VHK for the European Commission, 2011.   
Regulation (EC) 443/2009,  Regulation (EU) 510/2011 and Directive 1999/94/EC   
Directive 2005/55/EC and Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 
Directives 2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC  
Directive 2006/40/EC 

49 

 
 
                                                 
Environmental impacts of food and drink are addressed by existing EU legislation including 
through the Common Agricultural Policy's cross-compliance123, water, nitrates, sewage sludge 
and  fertiliser  policy124  and  the  organic  label125,  their  transport126,  emissions127  and  energy 
use128 from processing, retail129, packaging130, use131 and waste132. Environmental impacts of 
non-energy  related  products  are  also  addressed  by  the  EU  ecolabel133  and  by  green  public 
procurement134. 

Due to the vast diversity of what falls under the term 'product' it is not possible to quantify the 
potential  for  reduction  of  environmental  impacts  through  the  expansion  of  the  scope  of  the 
Directives. However, the examples provided above concerning the coverage of environmental 
impacts by existing legislation for the two main sectors of transport and food and drink that 
are not in the scope of the Directives show that the potential to address environmental impacts 
through  expansion  of  the  scope  of  the  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  is  relatively  limited 
compared to what at first sight might be expected. 

Further, in case of labelling there are only environmental benefits if it encourages consumers 
to  buy  products  that  are  environmentally  preferable.  Testing  of  energy  labels  with 
environmental  life-cycle  parameters135  added  showed  a  slight  positive  effect  in  this  respect, 
but at the same time consumers had difficulty understanding aspects on the labels that did not 
relate to the use of the product136. 

7.2.2.  Economic impact 

The  main  economic  impact  is  on  consumer  expenditure.  Consumers  include  both  private 
consumers  and  commercial  and  industrial  consumers  of  end-products.  The  consumer 
expenditure is the combined expenditure of purchase of products, energy costs during usage, 
and  for  some  products,  water  costs  during  usage  and/or  installation  and  maintenance  costs. 
The main drivers for a change in consumer expenditure as result of the options are: 1) more 
efficient  appliances  usually  have  higher  purchase  cost137;  and  2)  more  efficient  appliances 
cost  less  to  operate.  Overall  consumer  expenditure/savings  compared  to  the  baseline  are 
calculated for two different assumptions for future energy price developments138:  

1)  An  increase  in  energy  prices  of  4%  per  year,  which  has  been  the  assumption  in 
preparatory  studies  for  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  and  in  the  published  report 

123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 

136 
137 

138 

Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009  
Directives 2000/60/EC and 91/676/EEC and Regulations 86/768/EEC and (EC) 2003/2003 
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 
See legislation on vehicles referred to earlier in the paragraph 
Directive 2010/75/EC  
Energy use for refrigeration/cooking/baking, which is in the scope of ecodesign and energy labelling 
Commercial refrigeration for which ecodesign and energy labelling regulation is under preparation 
Directive 1994/62/EC 
Refrigeration and cooking appliances covered by ecodesign and energy labelling 
Directives 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC 
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm 
Parameters  that  indicate  the  impact  of  all  phases  in  a  products'  life,  including  production,  use  and 
recycling/disposal. 
Ipsos MORI, London Economics & AEA, Research on EU product label options, 2012 
Consumer expenditure also increases, because consumers buy more appliances than they used to (e.g. 
having three televisions in a house rather than one), but this does not differ between the options. 
Future water price developments are fixed at an increase of 3% per year. 

50 

 
                                                 
'ecodesign impact accounting'139. Corresponding results are provided in figure 10 and 
table 5;  

2)  An  increase  in  energy  prices  of  4%  per  year  up  to  2020  and  of  0.5%  from  2020 
onwards,  which  reflects  price  developments  in  the  PRIMES  model  used  for  the 
Commission's  2014  Energy  Efficiency  Communication140.  Corresponding  results  are 
provided in figure 11 and table 6.  

Under  the  first  energy  price  trend  assumption  the  consumer  expenditure  decreases 
continuously  going  from  Option  1  to  1+  to  2  to  3,  whereas  under  the  second  energy  price 
trend consumer expenditure is approximately the same for all options. The figures presented 
cover only energy-related products; for other products analysis is provided further below. The 
overall  trend  that  the  options  decrease  consumer  expenditure  compared  to  the  baseline  is 
reflected  also  for  individual  product  sectors,  with  exception  notably  for  space  heating  and 
cooking141.  

Figure 10: Consumer expenditure (billion €) for baseline a nd options, Total for the EU for a 4% escalation 
rate for energy prices (excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for option 3 do not take into 
account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text 

139 
140 
141 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/events/2014_energy_efficiency_communication_en.htm 
For space heating this is because the additional energy savings as a result of the options in this impact 
assessment  are  achieved  by  a  shift  towards  (currently)  expensive  geo-thermal  heat  pumps.  The 
predicted  increase  in  acquisition  costs  exceeds  the  predicted  decrease  in  energy  costs.  However,  the 
signaled  shift  will  increase  the  sales  quantities  for  these  heat  pumps  and  it  is  likely  (mass 
production/installation)  that  this  will  lead  to  a  further  reduction  of  the  prices  per  unit  than  those 
currently assumed in the model. This price development is difficult to assess, but it might well be that 
the  estimated  consumer  expenses  are  too  high.  There  is  also  a  small  such  observed  effect  for  space 
cooling, for which geo-thermal heat pumps can be applied as well. For cooking the same applies as for 
space  heating:  the  increase  in  consumer  expense  derives  mainly  from  electric  hobs.  In  this  case  the 
increase  in  efficiency  implies  a  shift  to  (currently)  expensive  induction  hobs  to  which  the  same 
reasoning applies as for heat pumps. 

51 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 11: Consumer expenditure (billion €) for baseline a nd options, Total for the EU for a 4% escalation 
rate  for  energy  prices  until  2020  and  0.5%  thereafter  (excluding  impact  from  any  change  in  label  layout). 
Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text 

Table  5:  Consumer  expenditure  savings  in  2030  for  the  options  compared  to  the  baseline  for  a  4% 
escalation rate for energy prices142 (excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for option 3 do 
not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text 

(bln €/a) 
WATER HEATING 
SPACE HEATING 
SPACE COOLING 
VENTILATION 
LIGHTING 
ELECTRONICS 
FOOD PRESERVATION 
COOKING 
CLEANING 
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS 
ENERGY SECTOR 
TOTAL in bln €/a 

Consumer Saving, year 2030
Base Opt1 Opt1+ Opt2 Opt3
-10.6
-9.6
6.2 
4.8 
0.3 
0.2 
-8.5 
-5.4 
-6.2 
-5.2 
-2.3 
-1.6 
-2.9 
-1.8 
3.3 
1.5 
-4.9 
-4.3 
-8.0 
-5.6 
-0.5 
-0.3 
-34.1
-27.2

-10.2
5.8 
0.2 
-7.8 
-6.0 
-2.1 
-2.4 
2.3 
-4.7 
-6.8 
-0.4 
-32.1

-4.7
1.9 
0.0 
-4.9 
-2.8 
-1.0 
-1.4 
1.6 
-2.4 
-5.5 
-0.2 
-19.5

0
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0  
0 
0 
0

142 

These are simply the savings in the year 2030; they are not averaged over the entire modelling period 
nor cumulative over a multi-year period. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table  6:  Consumer  expenditure  savings  in  2030  for  the  options  compared  to  the  baseline  for  a  4% 
escalation rate for energy prices until 2020 and 0.5% thereafter (excluding impact from any change in label 
layout). Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, 
see text 

(bln €/a) 
WATER HEATING 
SPACE HEATING 
SPACE COOLING 
VENTILATION 
LIGHTING 
ELECTRONICS 
FOOD PRESERVATION 
COOKING 
CLEANING 
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS 
ENERGY SECTOR 
TOTAL in bln €/a 

Consumer Saving, year 2030
Base Opt1 Opt1+ Opt2 Opt3
-4.9
-4.5
11.9 
9.4 
0.9 
0.6 
-5.0 
-3.4 
-4.4 
-3.7 
-1.6 
-1.1 
-1.7 
-1.1 
4.0 
2.0 
-3.5 
-3.1 
-5.1 
-3.6 
-0.3 
-0.1 
-9.8
-8.6

-4.7
11.1 
0.7 
-5.0 
-4.3 
-1.4 
-1.4 
2.9 
-3.4 
-4.4 
-0.2 
-10.2

-2.4
4.4 
0.3 
-3.2 
-2.0 
-0.7 
-0.8 
1.9 
-1.9 
-3.6 
-0.1 
-8.1

0
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0  
0 
0 
0

The  impact  on  commercial  revenues  of  energy–related  products  is  shown  in  table  7.  The 
additional impacts (applying to options 1+, 2 and 3) of the sub-options concerning the layout 
of the label are presented in table 9.  The impact  on commercial revenues includes industry, 
wholesale, retail, and, for some products groups, installation and maintenance. The impact on 
revenues affects larger businesses and small and medium sized enterprises143 in the same way. 
While wholesale, retail, installation and maintenance are done almost completely in the EU; 
part  of  the  manufacturing  is  not.  It  is  estimated  that  approximately  80-85%  of  the  total 
business  revenues  contribute  to  EU  GDP144.  The  increase  in  revenue  in  Option  3  of  €  40 
billion represents a 7% increase in 2030 compared to the baseline. 

The trend for the revenues follows the same trend as for the energy savings. This is because, 
except  for  electronic  products,  more  efficient  products  are  more  expensive.  For  lighting 
revenues  decrease,  because  the  shift  in  sales  to  higher  efficiency  lamp  types  means  mainly 
LEDs,  which  also  have  longer  economic  lifetimes  and  consequently  need  less  frequent 
substitution, leading to an overall decrease in sales volumes and consequently in revenue. The 
large increases in revenues for space heating and cooking are linked to their large increase in 
acquisition costs due to a shift to geo-thermal heat pumps and induction hobs. If unit prices 
for geo-thermal heat pumps and induction hobs would decrease further than now assumed in 
the model, revenues for all options might be over-estimated. 

For Option 3, there are additional significant economic impacts, because of the extension of 
the  scope  to  non-energy  related  products.  For  such  products  environmental  impacts  in  the 
production phase are usually of greater impact than those in the use phase. Thus, regulation of 
such  products  would  likely  focus  on  the  production  phase,  rather  than  the  use  phase.  This 
means that the environmental benefits would not result in a reduction in cost for the consumer 
using  the  product;  depending  on  the  environmental  impacts  to  be  addressed  it  may  increase 
the purchase costs for products for the consumer. There may be indirect cost reductions, such 
as reduction of costs of health care for EU tax-payers in case of reduced pollution in the EU. 
However, due to the vast diversity of what would fall under the scope of  'product',  it  is  not 
possible to quantify the costs or cost reductions associated with the extension of the scope to 
non-energy related products. 

143 
144 

SMEs affected can be found mostly in the retail and installation/maintenance sector.  
VHK,  Assistance  to  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Review  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and 
certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive, 2014 

53 

 
                                                 
Table 7: Revenue (sum of industry, retail, wholesale, installation and maintenance), total for EU in year 
2030, for the options compared to the baseline (excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for 
option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text 

(billion €/a) 

WATER HEATING 

SPACE HEATING 

SPACE COOLING 

VENTILATION 

LIGHTING 

ELECTRONICS 

FOOD PRESERVATION 

COOKING 

CLEANING 

INDUSTRY COMPONENTS 

ENERGY SECTOR 

TOTAL in bln €/a 

Revenue Increase, 2030 

Base  Opt1  Opt1+  Opt2  Opt3* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2.2 

9.0 

0.7 

0.4 

5.9 

6.3 

6.6 

17.9 

20.7 

22.2 

1.3 

0.8 

1.6 

0.9 

1.9 

2.4 

-0.4 

-0.7 

-0.8 

-0.9 

0.0 

0.3 

2.2 

0.4 

0.8 

0.1 

16 

0.0 

0.6 

2.5 

0.7 

0.8 

0.1 

30 

0.0 

0.6 

3.4 

0.8 

1.0 

0.2 

35 

0.0 

0.7 

4.6 

0.8 

1.2 

0.3 

40 

The administrative burden for the options is provided in table 8 and table 9, with further detail 
provided in Annex 9. The main driver for the burden for the  Member  States  (negative), the 
EU and the Commission is the EU market surveillance authority (in option 3). 

The main drivers for the burden for manufacturers are third party certification (options 2 and 
3) and the extension of the scope to non-energy related products (option 3). The measure of a 
product registration database does not lead to much additional administrative burden, because 
all the information manufacturers would have to register in the database is information they 
already  have  to  produce  under  the  current  energy  labelling  and  ecodesign  directive  and 
implementing measures before placing a product on the market. Therefore the only additional 
burden  is  the  clerical  task  of  entering  the  available  information  into  the  database145.  This 
amounts to 1.5 million euro per year for the entire industry in option 1+ and 3 million euro 
per year in options 2 and 3. 

The main driver for the burden for dealers is the display of monetary information, which costs 
2 million euro per year, (options 1+, 2 and 3) and the suboption (also in options 1+, 2 and 3) 
of the A-G label, which involves rescaling. For the rescaling suppliers would, for a period of 
several months after the date of application of  the  new  label  for  them,  supply  both  the  new 
and the old label with their products. Dealers would display the models with the old label but 
keep  the  new  label  ready.  On  a  specific  date  at  the  expiry  of  the  transition  period,  dealers 
would be required to replace the old label with the new one on all products that are on display 

145 

It  is  possible  that  the  registration  database  de  facto  leads  to  further  actual  additional  administrative 
burden. This would be the case for manufacturers that currently do not comply with the requirements to 
produce  technical  documentation  before  placing  a  product  on  the  market.  However,  this  non-
compliance  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  problem  that  market  surveillance  authorities  are  facing: 
obtaining  technical  documentation  often  takes  several  weeks,  in  part  because  the  manufacturers  only 
start producing it after the request. The requirement to register technical documentation would not only 
solve  the  problem  for  market  surveillance  authorities,  but  also  correct  this  de  facto  non-level  playing 
field between manufacturers.  

54 

 
 
 
                                                 
in  the  shops.  For  any  products  that  were  already  in  the  shop  before  the  transition  period 
started,  dealers  would  have  to  obtain  a  new  label  from  the  supplier  (further  practical  and 
administrative  details  on  rescaling  are  provided  in  Annex  8).  This  is  estimated  to  cost  50 
million euro for manufacturers and 10 million euro for dealers every 5-10 years. 

Given that compliance is mandatory, manufacturers and dealers should be able to pass their 
costs  on  to  consumers  and  thus  they  can  be  offset  against  the  benefits  for  consumers. 
Comparison  with  the  benefits  in  consumer  expenditure  and  commercial  revenues  shown 
above reveals that the administrative costs are offset manifold by the monetary benefits. 

Table 8: Total approximate additional administrative and compliance costs in EU per option compared to 
baseline (detail in Annex 9), excluding impact from any change in label layout 

Option 1 

Option 1+ 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Manufacturers 

none 

€ 1.5 million/year 

€ 140 million/year 

€ 500-1000 million/y 

Dealers 

none 

€ 2 million/year 

€ 2 million/year 

€ 2 million/year 

Member States 

none 

none 

none 

minus € 10 million/y 

EU/Commission  € 3.0 million/year  

€ 2.7 million/year  

€ 2.3 million/year  

€ 32 million/year 

Total (rounded) 

€ 3 million/year  

€ 6 million/year  

€ 145 million/year  

€ 500-1000 million/y 

Table  9:  Economic  impacts  in  2030  for  the  different  label  layouts  compared  to  the  baseline  A+++  to  D 
label 

numeric  

reverse numeric  

-2.2 

-0.8 

+2.1 

50 
(only once) 

10 
(only once) 

Consumer  expenditure  at  4%  energy  price 
escalation rate (billion € per year) 

Consumer expenditure at 0.5% energy price 
escalation rate from 2020 (billion € per year) 

Commercial revenues (billion € per year) 

A-G 

-3.7 

-1.2 

+3.7 

+1.0 

+0.3 

-1.0 

 Administrative burden for suppliers (million 
€) 

50 
(every 5-10 years) 

50 
(only once) 

Administrative  burden  for  dealers  (million 
€) 

10 
(every 5-10 years) 

10 
(only once) 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2.3. 

Social impact 

The impact in 2030 on jobs146 in industry, retail, wholesale, installation and maintenance per 
option compared to the baseline is shown in table 10 and the additional impact (applying to 
options 1+, 2 and 3) of the sub-options concerning the layout of the label presented in table 
11. It is estimated that industry jobs constitute 55% of total jobs and 70% of those are inside 
the  EU.  Estimating  that  wholesale,  retail  and  installer  jobs  are  almost  completely  inside  the 
EU,  this  means  that  around  85%  of  the  total  direct  jobs  are  created  inside  the  EU147.  Job 
creation for wholesale, retail and installers is expected to be even across the EU. Job creation 
in industry will be to a different extent in different Member States, depending on the extent of 
their  current  manufacturing  industry  in  these  sectors.  Given  that  the  main  product  sector 
where the increase takes place is the heating sector, for which the jobs are mostly in industry 
and  installation,  based  on  current  employment  patterns  in  that  sector,  it  is  expected  that  the 
job creation is skewed towards men rather than women and towards low and medium-skilled 
workers, rather than high-skilled workers. 

The trend for the options follows the same trend as for the commercial revenues as they are 
closely linked: in the model, the direct jobs are calculated from the increase in revenue and 
the  average  turnover  per  employee  in  the  various  sectors.  This  approach  is  generic  for  all 
products,  whereas  the  employment  effects  are  in  fact,  in  part,  expected  to  be  related  to  the 
specific technology used for each specific product. As a general approach this may therefore 
overestimate  the  direct  jobs.  In  addition,  if  the  revenues  for  space  heating  and  cooking  are 
over-estimated by the model as hypothesized above, then also the increase in direct jobs for 
those  products  would  be  overestimated  for  all  options;  this  effect  alone  could  mean  an 
overestimation by a factor two.  

Table 10: Direct jobs increase (sum of industry, retail, wholesale, installation and maintenance), total for 
EU  in  year  2030,  for  the  options  compared  to  the  baseline  (excluding  impact  from  any  change  in  label 
layout). Results may be significantly overestimated, see text, and results for option 3 do not take into account the 
extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text 

(in 1000 jobs) 

WATER HEATING 

SPACE HEATING 

SPACE COOLING 

VENTILATION 

LIGHTING 

ELECTRONICS 

FOOD PRESERVATION 

COOKING 

CLEANING 

INDUSTRY COMPONENTS 

Direct jobs increase, 2030 

Base  Opt1  Opt1+  Opt2  Opt3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

32 

83 

89 

94 

128 

254 

295 

316 

11 

6 

-7 

0 

5 

40 

6 

10 

18 

12 

23 

13 

27 

32 

-13 

-15 

-15 

0 

10 

44 

12 

10 

0 

12 

61 

14 

13 

0 

12 

82 

15 

16 

146 

147 

Note that these are direct jobs, i.e. in the production and trade column of the products; indirect jobs, i.e. 
those jobs created by the spending power of the direct employees, may be three to five times higher, but 
VHK  notes  in  their  report  on  ecodesign  impact  accounting  that  "no  consensus  agreed  factor  is 
available". 
VHK,  Assistance  to  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Review  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and 
certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive, 2014 

56 

 
 
                                                 
ENERGY SECTOR 

TRANSPORT SECTOR 

TOTAL 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

4 

0 

5 

0 

233 

432 

509 

584 

In terms of impacts on vulnerable consumers, the improvement of compliance in all options, 
ranging from some improvement in option 1 to a high improvement in option 3, benefits them 
in particular, reducing the risk that they unknowingly end up buying products that consume 
more energy than they intended and can afford. More generally, they benefit from lower costs 
over the life cycle of the product. For the product groups where there the costs over the life 
cycle  could  increase  (space  heating,  space  cooling  and  cooking)  this  increase  is  caused  by 
particularly  high  upfront  purchase  costs  of  advanced  technologies  of  which  the  sales  is 
encouraged  by  a  good  energy  label  class.  Because  of  the  particularly  high  upfront  cost, 
vulnerable  consumers  are  unlikely  to  purchase  these  technologies.  Alternative  technologies 
are  still  available  to  them,  except  possibly  in  the  case  of  option  3,  where  the  measure  of 
changing the least life cycle cost requirement under the ecodesign directive would remove the 
least life cycle cost technologies from the market. Thus, only in the case that option 3 would 
be selected, would mitigation measures for vulnerable consumers need to be foreseen. 

The  additional  impact  (applying  to  options  1+,  2  and  3)  of  the  sub-options  concerning  the 
layout  of  the  label  presented  in  table  11.  The  trends  follow  the  same  trends  as  for  energy 
savings. 

Table  11:  Social  impacts  in  2030  for  the  different  label  layouts  compared  to  the  baseline  A+++  label. 
Results may be significantly overestimated, see text 

Direct jobs (1000 jobs) 

A-G 

+52.2 

numeric  

reverse numeric  

-13.6 

+30.1 

With regard to potential social impacts in the area of fundamental rights, in particular on the 
protection  of  personal  data,  the  establishment  of  a  mandatory  product  registration  database 
(included in option 1+, 2 and 3) could have an impact as the concept of protection of data148, 
generally limited to natural persons, can be extended to legal persons, but only in so far as the 
official title of the legal person identifies one or more natural persons149. No such cases are 
known  for  the  manufacturers  of  energy-related  products.  In  any  case,  manufacturers  are 
already  required  to  put  their  name  or  trade  mark  on  the  energy  label.  For  data  that  may  be 
commercially sensitive (technical documentation and test reports) access would be restricted 
to the market surveillance authorities and the Commission, who are also today the only ones 
that have to be given access to them (on request). 

7.2.4. 

Impacts of merging ecodesign and energy labelling  

The suboption to Options 1+, 2 and 3 (merging ecodesign and energy labelling into one legal 
instrument) only has an impact on administrative burden. The suboption can also address the 
two issues of incoherence that were identified: the empty classes on some energy labels due to 
ecodesign requirements, and the lack of a working plan and a formalised stakeholder forum 

148 
149 

Enshrined in Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC  
C-92/09, point 53 

57 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
for Energy Labelling, while they exist under the Ecodesign Directive. Under this option, the 
framework  Directives  would  be  merged  and  revised  into  one  Regulation.  However,  no 
impacts  are  assumed  from  addressing  these  problems  through  a  merger  of  the  frameworks, 
because the incoherencies can already be addressed in the Options 1+, 2 and 3 without such 
merger. The problem of the empty classes can be addressed through revising the energy label, 
which  is  done  under  all  three  options.  The  problem  that  there  is  no  working  plan  and  a 
formalised stakeholder forum for energy labelling, while there is for ecodesign, can already be 
addressed through energy labelling only. 

The impacts in terms of administrative burden are the following: 

– 

The  Commission  would  have  reduced  work,  because  sections  concerning 
definitions and measurement and calculation methods that are usually identical 
in both ecodesign and energy labelling regulations for a specific product group 
would have to be drafted and revised only once, instead of twice. However, it 
is still only a small reduction of burden, because other parts of ecodesign and 
energy labelling regulations, which are the majority, are different. 

–  Manufacturers would be able to find their obligations for energy labelling and 
ecodesign in one regulation rather than in two. However, the impact of this is 
small, since the number of requirements on manufacturers is unlikely to change 
as  a  result  of  the  merger  (and  other  requirements  on  the  products,  e.g. 
concerning safety, remain laid down in other legislation). 

–  Member  States  would  have  one  less  separate  sector  for  their  market 
surveillance  of  EU  product  legislation.  However,  most  Member  States  have 
already combined the market surveillance for energy labelling and ecodesign in 
the  same  authority,  and  the  number  of  requirements  they  have  to  enforce  is 
unlikely to change as a result of the merger. 

– 

As  suboption  under  option  1+,  Member  States  would  have  to  delete  their 
transposition law on ecodesign as a result of the merger of the Directives into 
one Regulation, while otherwise they would not need to do so because option 
1+  does  not  imply  changes  to  the  Ecodesign  Directive.  This  means  a  one-off 
slight increase in administrative burden. 

The  above  impacts  on  administrative  burden  are  small,  because  ecodesign  and  energy 
labelling  regulations  for  specific  products  are  currently  already  developed  in  parallel  by  the 
Commission, even though there is no legal provision that arranges this. 

In order to merge the two frameworks a number of issues would have to be resolved. Firstly, 
the legal basis for the two frameworks is different. The Energy Labelling Directive is based 
on Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the legal base for 
measures  on  energy.  The  Ecodesign  Directive  is  based  on  Article  114  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  the  legal  base  for  measures  for  the  functioning  of  the 
internal market. While it would seem possible to have a legal base of Article 114 of the Treaty 
on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (the  1992  Energy  Labelling  Directive150  had,  in 
absence of a provision for energy in the Treaty, such legal base), there is a risk that this could 
unintentionally limit Member States legislating on provision of information on energy-related 

150 

Council Directive 92/75/EC 

58 

 
                                                 
products that may be complementary to the energy label151. Secondly, for the suboption under 
options  1+  and  2,  the  issue  of  the  different  scope  of  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  would 
have to be resolved. While option 3 foresees expansion and harmonisation of the scope, under 
options  1+  and  2,  the  scope  of  both  frameworks  remains  as  they  currently  are,  which  is 
different:  ecodesign  covers  all  life  cycle  phases  and  environmental  impacts,  while  energy 
labelling is limited to energy and resources in the use phase of the product. 

151 

E.g. France's consumer protection law on the provision of information on availability of spare parts 

59 

 
                                                 
8. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

This chapter summarises the pros and cons of the policy options in terms of their effectiveness 
in  meeting  the  objectives  (table  12)  and  their  associated  costs  and  benefits  weighed  against 
the baseline scenario (table 13Table). The comparison of the suboptions for the label layout is 
shown in table 14; these results add to options 1+, 2 and 3 in the same way.  

Box 2: Overview of the policy options 

Options 

Option 0: No change ("baseline option")  

Option 1: Improvements within the existing regulatory framework, notably funding EU joint 
market surveillance actions 

Option 1+: Option 1 combined with some changes to the Energy Labelling Directive, notably 
requiring labelled products to be registered in a database and improving the legal structure by 
changing to a Regulation and aligning it the market surveillance regulation. 

Option  2:  Option  1+  combined  with  changes  to  the  Ecodesign  Directive,  notably  requiring 
ecodesign products to be registered in a database and requiring third party certification for all 
products under its scope. 

Option 3: Changing the scope of both Directives to cover all products instead of only energy-
related  products,  requiring  products  to  be  registered  in  a  database,  requiring  third  party 
certification for all products under its scope and market surveillance done by an EU authority. 

Suboption  to  option  1+,  2  and  3:  merge  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  into  one  legal 
instrument. 

Suboptions for the label layout 

Option 0 and 1 include: current A+++ to D and not updating the label 

Other options can include alternative suboptions: 

Alphabetic label: A to G with reclassification when updating the label 

Numeric label: 0 to 100 with top classes in grey only becoming available when updating 

Reverse numeric label: 7 to 1 with classes 8, 9 etc. being added on top when updating 

60 

 
 
Table 12: Qualitative comparison of the impact of the options with regard to the objectives,  

Baseline 

Option 1 

Option 1+ 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Functioning of the internal market  

Reduce energy consumption of products 

Reduce other environmental impacts 

Simple, apt for purpose and future-proof 

Cost-effective 

Relevant and useful to consumers 

Enforce easily and appropriately 

In line with international obligations 

Table legend: 

Extent to which the objective is achieved 

Little 

Some 

To significant 
extent 

Thoroughly 

Grey scale 

How to interpret table 12 

The baseline does not address the problems. It ensures functioning of the internal market and 
achieves  energy  savings  in  and  a  reasonably  cost-effective  way.  However,  it  offers  no 
solutions  to  the  problems  of  non-compliance  and  reduced  effectiveness  of  labels  on 
consumers, nor does it offer simplifications. 

Option  1  secures  some  progress  towards  further  energy  savings  and  reducing  non-
compliance,  but  cannot  achieve  all  objectives  satisfactorily,  in  particular  non-legislative 
action cannot address the problem of the label layout. 

Option  1+  achieves  significant  progress  in  further  energy  savings,  reduction  of  non-
compliance and better labels for consumers. This is achieved in a cost-effective way, saving 
consumer  money.  It  simplifies  legislation  through  coherence  with  the  market  surveillance 
regulation and revision of the Energy Labelling Directive. The choice of instrument for that 
revision, a Regulation, is appropriate for obligations that apply directly to economic operators 
and is in line with the EU's better regulation agenda. 

Option  2  is  with  regard  to  the  objectives    different  from  option  1+  mainly  with  respect  to 
international  obligations,  for  which  the  measure  requiring  third  party  certification  for  all 
product  covered  by  ecodesign  could  create  disproportionate  obstacles  with  regard  to 
international  trade  .  It  is  not  obvious  that  the  principle  of  proportionality  is  respected  by 
introducing  third  party  verification  for  all  products  regardless  of  it  being  duly  justified  and 
proportionate  to  the  risk  of  non-compliance.  Another  difference  is  that  would  include  a 
revision of the Ecodesign Directive simplifying it into a Regulation. 

Option 3 achieves significant progress in reducing environmental impacts other than energy 
consumption.  However,  from  the  analysis  it  is  not  obvious  whether  this  policy  is  the  right 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
instrument  for  that:  for  a  number  of  product  types  it  overlaps  with  other  environmental 
policies. As such, it does not lead to simplification, nor is it particularly cost-effective. Unlike 
for the other options, it is not obvious that the principle of proportionality is respected for this 
option: it appears to go beyond what is necessary to achieve the identified objectives, at least 
for  those  non-energy  related  products  that  are  covered  to  significant  extent  by  existing 
legislation. In addition, like option 2 it could create disproportionate obstacles with regard to 
international  trade  and  it  is  not  obvious  that  the  principle  of  proportionality  is  respected  by 
introducing  third  party  verification  for  all  products  regardless  of  it  being  duly  justified  and 
proportionate to the risk of non-compliance. 

Table 13: Summary of the impacts estimates compared to the baseline, excluding impact from any change 
in label layout 

Option 1 

Option 1+ 

Option 2 

Option 3* 

Environmental impacts 

Energy use (TWh primary/year) 

-310 

-490 

-580 

GHG (Mt CO2-eq./y) 

-45 

-75 

-87 

better than 
option 2 

better than 
option 2 

Consumer  expenditure  at  4%  energy 
price escalation rate (billion € per year) 

Consumer  expenditure  at  0.5%  energy 
price escalation rate from 2020 (billion € 
per year) 

Commercial  revenues  (billion  €  per 
year) 

Economic impacts 

-20 

-8 

-27 

-9 

-32 

-10 

at best similar 
to option 2 

at best similar 
to the other 
options 

+16 

+30 

+35 

not available 

Social impact 

Direct jobs (1000 jobs)** 

+230 

+430 

+510 

not available 

Administrative burden  

 Administrative  burden  (million  €  per 
year) 

+3 

+6 

+145 

+500-1000 

*Due  to  the  inclusion  of  the  extension  of  the  scope  to  non-energy  related  products  in  this  option,  some 
quantifications for this option are not available and others not to the same extent as for the other options 

**The direct jobs creation may be significantly overestimated, see explanation in section 7.2.3. 

With regard to stakeholder views, Option 1 has little support from stakeholders, while Option 
1+ has significant support from stakeholders: the vast majority is of the view that the Energy 
Labelling Directive needs to be changed to achieve energy savings closer to the full economic 
technical potential. Option 2, revising also the Ecodesign Directive, is supported by a smaller 

62 

 
 
 
 
share of stakeholders. In particular industry interest groups are not convinced about the need 
for changes to the Ecodesign Directive152. Green NGOs support option 3. 

The  suboption  to  merge  the  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  has  the  additional  effect  of 
slightly reduced administrative burden for the Commission and manufacturers, although in the 
case of Option 1+ it also means a slight additional administrative burden for Member States. 
The suboption of merging is not proportionate in the case of Option 1+, because the measures 
in that option do not require a revision of ecodesign. 

Table 14: Impacts in 2030 for the different label layouts compared to the baseline A+++ label 

A-G 

numeric  

reverse numeric  

Energy use (TWh primary/year) 

GHG (Mt CO2-eq./y) 

Environmental impacts 

-62 

-9.6 

Economic impacts 

Consumer  expenditure  at  4%  energy  price 
escalation rate (billion € per year) 

Consumer expenditure at 0.5% energy price 
escalation rate from 2020 (billion € per year) 

Commercial revenues (billion € per year) 

-3.7 

-1.2 

+3.7 

Social impact 

+17 

+2.6 

+1.0 

+0.3 

-1.0 

-36 

-5.5 

-2.2 

-0.8 

+2.1 

Direct jobs (1000 jobs)* 

+52.2 

-13.6 

+30.1 

Administrative burden 153 

 Administrative burden for business (million 
€) 

60 
(every 5-10 years) 

60 
(only once) 

60 
(only once) 

*The direct jobs creation may be significantly overestimated, see explanation in section 7.2.3. 

With  regard  to  the  label  layout,  the  A+++  to  D  and  the  reverse  numeric  label  do  not  have 
much  support  from  stakeholders.  The  vast  majority  supports  an  A-G  label,  though  not  all 
manufacturers  and  retailers  do.  The  numeric  label  is  supported  by  some  industry  interest 
groups. 

The  above  comparison  shows  that  of  the  options  that  have  most  support  from  stakeholders, 
option  1+  that  revises  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive,  but  not  the  Ecodesign  Directive, 
achieves  significantly  higher  energy  savings  and  positive  economic  and  social  impacts  than 
Options 0 and 1. Option 2 and 3 achieve even better results in these categories154, but they do 
not score as well in achieving the objective of being in line with international obligations and 
for option 3 it is not obvious that the principle of proportionality is respected. 

152 
154 

Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.7  
Although the difference in economic impacts between options 1+ and 2 is close to the margin of error 
of the analysis. 

63 

 
 
                                                 
The label layout that has most support from stakeholders, the A-G label, scores the best on all 
aspects,  except  administrative  costs  related  to  the  rescaling  of  the  label.  Given  that 
compliance  is  mandatory,  suppliers  and  dealers  should  be  able  to  pass  these  costs  on  to 
consumers.  For  consumers,  these  costs  more  than  offset  against  their  monetary  benefits 
resulting from the A-G label's superior effect. 

64 

 
9. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  general  objectives  of  the  Energy  Labelling  and  Ecodesign  Directive  are  to  ensure  the 
functioning of the internal market and a high level of environmental and consumer protection. 
The functioning of the internal market is ensured under both frameworks by a requirement for 
Member  States  to  allow  the  free  movement  of  products  compliant  with  the  respective  EU 
rules.  Member  States  are  required  to  notify  to  the  Commission  their  (draft)  legislation  that 
could potentially be an obstacle to the free movement of goods. The indicator of success in 
this case is the number of national pieces of legislation concerning environmental impacts of 
energy-related products that are notified to the Commission (the lower the number, the better).  

Environmental  and  consumer  protection  is  ensured  through  the  reduction  of  energy 
consumption  and  other  significant  environmental  impacts.  The  indicator  of  success  is  the 
reduction in the product's impact in the categories regulated in the delegated acts. Progress is 
monitored  product  by  product:  under  both  the  existing  and  the  proposed  framework,  the 
product-specific delegated acts require reviews to be carried out some years after their entry 
into  force.  Such  reviews  gather  information  about  the  environmental  performance  of  the 
products in scope that are sold and used in the EU. Thereby, progress is tracked compared to 
the  situation  before  the  adoption  of  the  acts,  and  necessary  adjustments  can  be  made  to  the 
requirements,  if  there  is  technologically  feasible  and  cost-effective  further  improvement 
potential. This also allows checking progress towards the operational objective of the present 
review, increasing the effectiveness of the labelling scheme by allowing a rescaling of those 
labels  where  only  the  top  classes  are  populated  today  due  to  technological  development. 
Results  can  be  monitored  in  the  context  of  subsequent  reviews  of  the  concerned  delegated 
acts,  which  will  be  able  to  measure  the  acceleration  of  market  transformation  thanks  to 
rescaling,  compared  to  the  current  speed  of  transformation.  The  measures  establishing  an 
energy-related products database study and a mandatory product registration database would 
also provide the Commission with more solid data to monitor and evaluate progress towards 
meeting the objective of further energy savings. 

Reporting  by  Member  States  on  the  result  of  market  surveillance  under  the  market 
surveillance regulation would provide the Commission with data on enforcement actions and 
compliance, allowing to verify whether compliance rates are increasing as a result of market 
surveillance  enhanced  through  the  use  of  the  product  database.  The  Administrative 
Cooperation ('ADCO',  see Annex 3) group  on  market surveillance on ecodesign and energy 
labelling provides a platform in which the reports on of market surveillance activities can be 
jointly analysed with the Member States market surveillance authorities. 

The next evaluation  of  the Energy Labelling framework is foreseen in 5-10 years. It should  
building  on  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  product-specific  review  studies,  evaluate  the 
effectiveness of the framework in ensuring the free movement of goods and the reduction of 
energy consumption and other significant environmental impacts of products, especially with 
regard to improvements achieved in the rate of market transformation by rescaled labels, and 
in the rate of market surveillance thanks to the product database. 

65 

 
ANNEX 1 – USE OF EXPERTISE AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

External expertise 

Two studies were specifically commissioned to prepare the review: 

(1) 

Ecofys,  Waide  Strategic  Efficiency,  University  of  Coimbra,  SEVEn7,  SoWatt  & 
Öko-Institute,  Evaluation  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and  specific  aspects  of 
the Ecodesign Directive, 2014. 

The study produced the following final reports: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Literature review155 

Survey results156 

Assessment scope expansion157 

Final technical report158 

(2) 

London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of 
potential  changes  to  it  –  on  consumer  understanding  and  on  purchase  decisions, 
2014.159 

Further studies requested by the Commission during 2011-2014 also provided relevant input: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014160 

Ecofys,  Impacts  of  the  EU’s  Ecodesign  and  Energy/Tyre  labelling  legislation 
on third jurisdictions, 30 April 2014161 

Ecofys,  Impact  of  Ecodesign  and  Energy/Tyre  Labelling  on  R&D  and 
Technological Innovation, 23 May 2014162 

COWI  &  BIO  Intelligence  Service,  Assessing  the  data  collected  in  the 
framework  of  the  Ecodesign  and  Labelling  annual  market  surveillance  data 
collection exercise run by the Commission, on-going 

CentERdata,  Ecorys  &  GfK,  Study  on  the  effects  on  consumer  behaviour  of 
online sustainability information displays, 2014163 

155 
156 

157 

158 

159 

160 
161 
162 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_I_-_Literature_report.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_III_-
_assessment_scope_expansion_-_final.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_III_-
_assessment_scope_expansion_-_final.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final_technical_report-
Evaluation_ELD_ED_June_2014.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_III_-
_assessment_scope_expansion_-_final.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/201404_ieel_third_jurisdictions.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/201405_ieel_product_innovation.pdf 

66 

 
 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

Ipsos  MORI,  London  Economics  &  AEA,  Research  on  EU  product  label 
options, 2012164 

BIO Intelligence Service, Material-efficiency Ecodesign Report and Module to 
the Methodology for the Ecodesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP), 2013 

JRC-IES “Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in 
European product policies – Second phase”, 2012. 

A  study  by  VHK  "Assistance  to  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Review  of  the  Energy 
Labelling Directive and certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive" provided specific analysis 
for the options set out in this impact assessment, notably through modelling, see Annex 5. 

Consultation 

Three stakeholder meetings were organised by the contractor of the evaluation study: on 27 
June 2013, 14 October 2013 and 18 February 2014. A website was maintained where minutes 
and other documents related to these meetings were published165. As the second meeting took 
place in the context of the public consultation it was chaired by the Commission. 

The  public  consultation  ran  from  31  August  to  30  November  2013  on  the  ‘Your  voice  in 
Europe’  web  page.  The  consultation  was  separated  in  two  different  questionnaires  targeting 
different actors: a survey with 47 questions targeted interest groups, government bodies and 
experts.  A  shorter  survey  with  20  questions  targeted  consumers  and  individual  retailers  and 
manufacturers and was translated into all EU official languages. 138 Responses were received 
to  the  longer  survey,  of  which  58  from  manufacturers  and  their  interest  groups,  20  from 
government  bodies,  13  from  environmental  interest  groups  and  9  from  consumer  interest 
groups.  197  Responses  were  received  to  the  shorter  survey,  of  which  127  from  consumers 
(from 18 EU Member States; almost one third from France), 40 from retailers (almost all from 
Germany) and 30 from manufacturers (half of which from Germany). A detailed summary of 
the respondents and responses was published in February 2014166. 

In  conjunction  with  the  contractors'  meeting  on  18  February,  the  Commission  organised  a 
stakeholder  meeting  on  19  February  2014  on  the  results  from  testing  a  preliminary  set  of 
energy label designs and the proposed energy label designs for further testing. The minutes of 
the meeting can be found further below in this Annex. 

In  the  context  of  the  review,  the  Commission  organised  on  20  and  21  February  2014  a 
Conference  on  Products  Policy:  International  Trends  in  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling. 
More  than  400  participants  from  approximately  50  different  countries  attended.  The  three 
plenary  sessions  and  six  workshops  included  51  speakers,  panellists  and  moderators,  a 
majority of which came from the public sector (34%), followed by the private sector (32%), 
academics/researchers/consultants  (21%)  and  NGOs  (13%).  16%  of  the  speakers/panellists 
came from outside the EU. Key outcomes of the conference were: 

• 

163 

164 
165 
166 

As regards the review of the energy label, there is consensus that continuing with the 
A+++  label  (i.e.  arriving  at  4,  5  or  6  plusses)  is  not  sustainable  and  has  to  be 

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/effects-consumer-behaviour-online-sustainability-
information-displays-study-report 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2012-12-research-eu-product-label-options.pdf 
http://www.energylabelevaluation.eu/ 
http://www.energylabelevaluation.eu/tmce/BUINL13345_Survey_Report_def.pdf 

67 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
addressed.  Rescaling  of  the  label  (meaning  that  an  A-labelled  product  today  would 
become  a  C  or  D-labelled  product  tomorrow)  is  an  option  which  has  been 
implemented successfully in other jurisdictions (notably Australia). 

• 

• 

Further international cooperation was welcomed by everybody although it will not be 
easy as there are no obvious 'low hanging fruit'. The focus should be on convergence 
of standards and test methods. 

More  effective  market  surveillance  is  crucial  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  for 
industry  and  to  provide  consumers  with  reliable  information.  More  collaboration 
between  Member  State  authorities  and  the  establishment  of  obligatory  product 
registration by manufacturers (as already happens in USA and Brazil) were seen as 
key areas for future work. 

Further details of the conference, including all presentations, are available online.167 

The Commission organised an Ecodesign Consultation Forum on the review of the Directives 
on 11 June 2014. The minutes of the meeting can be found further below in this Annex. 

Minutes of the consultation meeting organised by the services of the European Commission 
on the method to update existing energy label scales to reflect technological progress of the 
labelled products 

Date: 19 February 2014, 9:00 – 13:00 

Venue: Charlemagne building (Room De Gasperi) at 170, Rue de la Loi, Brussels. 

1. 

Introduction by European Commission, DG Energy 

The  Chair  (P.  Hodson,  Head  of  Unit  for  Energy  Efficiency,  DG  Energy)  welcomed 
participants  and  indicated  that  the  on-going  work  on  the  review  of  the  Energy  Labelling 
Directive  and  Ecodesign  Directive  should  make  it  possible  for  the  new  Commission  to 
proceed with this towards the end of 2014. The work on the review started in May 2013 with 
a study led by Ecofys and one of the key topics is the label design for which a second study 
by London Economics and Ipsos tests consumer understanding and behaviour. The objective 
of this meeting is as much as possible to find consensus on which four label designs to test. 

2. 
Findings  from  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive's  Evaluation  Study  on  the  method  to 
update existing energy label scales to reflect technological progress of the labelled products 
(P. Waide on behalf of Ecofys and their consortium partners) 

See presentation in Annex I 

Results from testing a preliminary set of energy label designs (Ch. Duke on behalf of 

3. 
London Economics / IPSOS) 

See presentation in Annex II 

4. 

167 

Questions of clarification 

http://www.amiando.com/PolicyProductsConference2014.html 

68 

 
 
                                                 
ECOS indicated that the energy label not only serves to compare specific products, but also to 
compare with the market as a whole, which was the objective of the idea of the benchmark 
marker and this second aspect should somehow be addressed. 

CECED  asked  whether  P.Waide  had  specific  evidence  for  the  statement  that  products  are 
often designed to just meet the thresholds of label classes. P. Waide confirmed that there was 
research  from  early  in  the  implementation  of  the  energy  label  that  indeed  showed  this. 
CECED  further  inquired  about  the  confidence  intervals  for  the  first  phase  of  the  London 
Economics/IPSOS study. Ch. Duke did not have these intervals at hand but indicated that due 
to  the  large  sample  sizes  (about  3000  for  each  label  tested)  confidence  levels  are  relatively 
high.  CECED  also  noted  that  the  willingness  of  consumers  to  spend  money  is  a  complex 
matter  with  many  factors  whereas  the  experiments  in  the  first  phase  of  the  London 
Economics/IPSOS study reflect an extreme simplification of reality and therefore one should 
be cautious on aspects related to money. Ch. Duke replied that the simulated environment is 
indeed simplified and that this has both benefits and weaknesses. A weakness is indeed that in 
reality many other things have an impact. A benefit is that the experiment allows comparison 
under the exact same conditions. 

Italy indicated that the Australian approach on updating energy labels referred to by P. Waide 
no longer applies:  today further stars ('superclasses') are added to the existing six. P. Waide 
indicated that this is true for some products, but that he understood consumers had difficulty 
understanding  the  superclasses.  Italy  further  indicated  that  the  difference  in  understanding 
between the A-G label and others in the first phase of the London Economics/IPSOS study is 
small given that the A-G labels are well-known and the others are not; thus any of the labels 
can  be  considered  to  be  understandable.  In  the  first  instance,  the  rules  on  how  to  update 
existing  energy  label  scales  should  be  fixed  and  only  after  that  should  further  consumer 
understanding testing be done. 

The Netherlands responded to the remark by Italy, indicating that not only understanding is 
important, but also behaviour and if a label is less effective in that respect, manufacturers can 
ask less money for appliances in better classes. Moreover, the Netherlands indicated that the 
Ecofys study put too much emphasis on how consumers react to labels and too little on the 
position/role  of  suppliers  and  dealers.  The  study  also  sketches  an  ideal  picture  on  changing 
labels  whereas  the  reality  is  more  complex:  there  are  still  old-style  EU  energy  labels  to  be 
found  in  shops.  The  transition  period  should  not  be  taken  lightly;  any  continuous  transition 
might create confusion. 

BSH  indicated  that  the  Australian  approach  has  led  to  classes  that  are  unattainable  with 
reasonable economic effort. P. Waide responded that that is a relevant issue, but separate from 
the one under discussion. 

Francisco  Zuloaga  remarked  that  the  comments  on  the  Australian  experience  showed  that 
good market data is the basis for a good discussion. 

Electrolux  stated  that  they  were  concerned  about  frequent  changes  to  the  label,  which  is  a 
problem for innovation and for consumers. There could be scope for an A-G label under the 
right conditions. 

5. 

Proposed energy label designs for further testing (European Commission, DG Energy) 

69 

 
Public debate on the proposed energy label designs and on the method for testing them 

6. 
(moderated by the European Commission, DG Energy) 

The Chair indicated that a maximum of four labels can be tested, but they do not have to be 
the four labels suggested. He invited participants to comment particularly on the labels they 
liked with the aim to improve them. 

The Ökopol institute inquired why the benchmark marker was only included in label 3 and 
suggested it might better be left out, possibly to be tested in a later phase. 

Denmark remarked that while the A-G label seems to them the best for consumers, for the 
testing their comments concerned labels 3 and 4. These should be combined, taking the best 
from  each  by  introducing  the  benchmark  and  the  top  grey  classes  from  label  3  in  label  4. 
Further,  concerning  the  testing  methodology  consumers  should  be  given  information  on  the 
labels in advance to avoid bias because some labels are close to the current one and others are 
not. 

EHI  pointed  to  the  specificities  for  heating  products  as  opposed  to  washing  machines, 
televisions  and  lamps  on  which  the  to  be  tested  labels  are  based.  Heating  products  have 
different characteristics, e.g. lifetime, and are not yet labelled, only from 2015.  

ECOS  stated  that  label  1  should  not  be  tested  as  no  one  is  in  favour  of  using  that.  Label  3 
incorporates too many innovative elements at the same time, each of those should be tested 
separately;  the  benchmark  marker  could  be  left  out.  The  methodology  for  testing  should 
include  assessing  consumers'  willingness  to  pay.  Further,  it  is  important  to  know  whether 

70 

 
 
 
consumers  expect  the  label  to  be  about  energy  efficiency  or  absolute  energy  consumption. 
Concerning the bottom part of the label something better than 'kWh/annum' is needed e.g. an 
extra horizontal scale. 

Italy  indicated  that  whatever  methodology  would  be  chosen,  it  would  always  have 
weaknesses, but this should not be used to reject the result. Italy indicated it preferred label 3, 
but  the  benchmark    marker  is  a  problem  and  also  the  number  on  the  arrow  does  not 
correspond to the number on the class. Further, the transition period between two generations 
of labels, a weak point of label 2, should be tested. Italy further inquired how the countries in 
which the tests will take place were selected. 

IKEA remarked that they would be interested to see more on pricing so that consumers can 
see  what  they  will  be  saving  on  their  energy  bills.  IKEA  indicated  that  Label  1  is  not  an 
option whereas label 2 is. For label 3 the year number on the benchmark marker is confusing. 
The  grey  scales  on  that  label  are  interesting  though  they  add  more  information/complexity; 
they are not needed at the bottom. 

The  Rhineland-Palatinate  Consumer  Organisation  suggested  that  for  the  methodology 
more than just 2-3 products in the shop should be labelled to get closer to real conditions. The 
interviews  should  include  a  question  on  why  consumers  choose  a  certain  product.  The  test 
should  include  more  complex  products  such  as  air  conditioners.  Label  1  should  not  be 
included.  Label  2  should  include  a  year  number  to  distinguish  the  generation  of  the  label. 
Label 3 and 4 should be made clearer; the numbers may not be understood by consumers. 

ANEC/BEUC suggested that since it is well-known that label 2 works best, both in terms of 
understanding  and  behaviour,  the  focus  should  be  on  how  to  improve  that  label.  The  word 
'annum'  on  the  label  is  not  understood  by  all  consumers.  The  benchmark  marker  in  label  3 
could give the wrong impression that is also covers non-energy aspects. In the methodology 
for  testing  consumers  should  not  be  given  prior  information  on  the  labels.  Concerning 
transition periods between labels the current process does not seem the right process to look at 
this. The key issue for the current study is to make a better scale. The transition process is an 
issue that needs to be looked at separately to ensure that it will not confuse consumers. 

CECED  remarked  that  the  label  is  a  tool  that  should  work  on  the  market  at  all  times. 
Therefore, there is a need to test transition scenarios, because two labels will co-exist on the 
market.  This  needs  to  be  tested  in  brick-and-mortar  stores.  Some  of  the  suggested  label 
designs  could  be  improved.  The  benchmark  marker  could  be  taken  out  and  for  label  4  the 
scale  could  run  from  7  to  1  instead  of  12  to  6.  Concerning  the  methodology  for  testing  it 
seems  that  the  question  'Which  appliance  would  you  buy?'  covers  the  entire  evaluation 
process of which energy efficiency is  only a part. Instead the question ' Which appliance is 
more efficient?' should be asked. 

The  German  Retail  Federation  indicated  that  the  benchmark  marker  should  be  left  out  of 
label 3. The question 'Which appliance would you buy?' would lead to skewed result if it is 
not actually bought. Any result on understanding would not be useful if not the question of 
rescaling is taken into account. Further, also the administrative burden of rescaling should be 
taken into account. 

Sweden suggested an alternative label design with an A-G scale which has grey arrows added 
on the top. The benchmark marker is not needed, because the grey arrows already provide an 
indication of such information. However, the year of the label needs to be added. The labels 

71 

 
should be tested not only on consumers, but also on manufacturers and retailers. QR codes on 
the label are very important and should therefore already now be included. 

CLASP indicated that they missed a clear statement of the research question being asked. A 
clear  rationale  for  the  different  label  elements  is  missing.  There  should  be  a  more 
methodological approach. 

Consumers Futures UK stated that an inquiry among 4000 consumers showed that they were 
interested  in  running  costs.  However,  introducing  a  second  rating  chart  with  running  cost 
would be confusing. Further, not only do consumers have difficulty with the word 'annum' on 
the label, but also with 'kWh'. They suggested the potential for open data should be explored, 
although it is not clear whether this should be done through QR codes. 

Francisco Zuloaga remarked that there is no need to test label 1. Further, since the first part 
of the study already tested understanding, the second part could instead focus on rescaling. 

Belgium indicated that it fully supported that all the suggested four labels will be tested. The 
experiment should be as open as possible to new ideas at this stage. However, label 1 should 
have  A+++  on  top  and  not  A++++.  Such  a  label  would  also  allow  rescaling  and  the  A+++ 
could be indicated in grey. Grey scales at the bottom do not seem useful, but at the top they 
are more interesting. For label 3 the benchmark marker is interesting and can be included as 
such. It is good to test in brick-and-mortar shops to understand the actions of consumers in an 
actual situation. All four labels offer the possibility or rescaling though this study should be 
about  the  layout.  However,  it  is  also  necessary  to  take  into  account  how  manufactures  and 
retailers react to the situation of rescaling. A questionnaire should be presented to the retailers 
participating in the experiment. Belgium asked whether it was possible to test a layout where 
the  length  of  the  bars  represents  the  energy  consumption.  Belgium  further  inquired  whether 
the  black  arrow  should  give  alphabetic  or  numeric  information  and  whether  0-100  scale  in 
label 3 represents the energy efficiency index. 

Germany indicated that label 1 is not an option and that instead the A+++ label should serve 
as  the  business  as  usual  scenario.  Label  2  should  be  tested  with  a  rescaling  scenario  and 
include a validity year on the label. Label 3 should be tested without the benchmark marker as 
it  has  a  key  influence  on  the  result.  Such  additional  elements  could  be  tested  in  a  second 
phase. There should not be a number in the arrow on this label, but instead the arrow should 
be in the colour of the class. For label 4 they inquired why it runs from 12 to 6 and not from 7 
to 1. 

France remarked that testing label 1 is not a good idea. The current three plusses on the label 
is already a lot. Label 2 should be tested with a rescaling scenario. Label 3 should be tested 
without a benchmark and perhaps an A-G label with grey zones could be tested. Label 4 is not 
clearly understandable. Labels 2 and 3 are the most important to test as well as an A-G label 
with grey zones. The labels should also be tested with manufacturers and retailers. 

The Netherlands stated that this study cannot and does not need to solve all issues; it should 
not  try  to  solve  the  transition  process.  If  there  is  a  transition,  this  will  apply  to  all  label 
designs, not just for label 2. It is possible for label 2 to be used for 10 years without transition. 
The research of this study should be kept simple. Label 1 seems awkward for experts, but on 
second thought it is useful to test, because not all those involved are experts. The benchmark 
marker should be left out of label 3. Both understanding and effectiveness should be tested. 

72 

 
Orgalime  remarked  that  it  is  necessary  to  make  sure  that  the  labels  are  comparable.  They 
asked why the benchmark marker was only included in label 3. The transition process from 
the current to the new label should be tested as well as further updates of the label. 

The  United  Kingdom  remarked  that  it  is  necessary  to  test  a  business-as-usual  label,  but  it 
seems  this  should  be  an  A+++  label  rather  than  label  1.  There  should  not  be  a  benchmark 
marker in label 3. 

Austria suggested leaving out label 1 because it is not consistent, combining alphabetic with 
symbolic elements. Leaving it out increases the sample size for the testing of the other three 
labels. In label 3 there is no added value to include the benchmark marker. It is also better for 
the consumer not to include grey areas. Further, the question is which label both consumers 
and industry will accept. 

The  German  Federal  Environment  Agency  supplemented  the  German  comments  by 
remarking  that  also  the  absolute  energy  consumption  is  important  and  that  it  should  be 
investigated whether for some appliances an indication 'per cycle' would be more motivating 
than 'per annum'. 

BSH stated that the co-existence of different labels should be addressed and that it is possible 
to test this without making the experiment too complex. If needed, BSH is available to assist 
on this. 

Ch. Duke responded to a number of methodological questions raised. Responding to CECED, 
she indicated that the experiment will ask consumers which product they would buy, but also 
why they would buy that one and which they think is more efficient. Responding to Italy she 
explained that for the selection of the countries for the testing in the second part of the study it 
was attempted to get a mix in geographic coverage while having a practical approach: testing 
in  brick-and-mortar  shops  is  not  very  common  and  agreements  with  retailers  are  key. 
Responding  to  the  Rhineland-Palatinate  Consumer  Organisation  she  explained  that  only  a 
limited  number  of  products  in  the  shops  can  be  labelled  for  the  experiment  as  it  is  using 
valuable store space and it is not practical to do it on the whole shop floor. 

The Chair made the following points on the basis of the discussion: 

−  There is a need for a business-as-usual label, but it would indeed be better to use the 

A+++ label for that purpose than label 1. 

−  No one argued against label 2; there were only remarks on the transition phase. There 
is a trade-off on the understanding of the labels versus the transition and rescaling. If a 
transition would be tested it would have to be done for all four labels. This study is not 
necessarily the best tool to do this. The Commission will have to assess the transition 
in its impact assessment and will have to assess it separately from the current study. 
−  For label 3 it is necessary to make it as good as possible. With a few exceptions the 
inclusion of the benchmark marker is not supported. Other suggestions were to put the 
exact number of the class on the arrow, to change the colour of the arrow, to remove 
the grey bars at the bottom and to add a top class of zero. There is a need to look from 
the graphical perspective whether these can be done. 

−  Concerning label 4 it is a question whether to keep this label or not. If it is not kept the 
sample  size  for  the  other  three  labels  can  be  increased  or  something  else  could  be 
tested. Testing elements related to costs seems too complex in this study and on-going 

73 

 
work in the UK on this can be used. Other options for testing are: label 3 with letters 
instead  of  numbers;  per  cycle  versus  per  annum;  and  higher  prominence  of  absolute 
energy consumption. 

The German Retail Federation asked what the grey bars would stand for in a label 3 with 
letters instead of numbers. They suggested keeping label 4, but adding grey bars to it. 

ECOS  stated  that  testing  a  label  3  with  letters  instead  of  numbers  is  appropriate  as  this 
introduces  an  innovative  element  to  an  alphabetic  label,  whereas  so  far  only  innovative 
elements were included in numeric labels. Further the methodology should include a question 
on efficiency versus consumption.  

Belgium indicated they would like to see label 4 maintained, but grey bars could be added on 
top. 

Italy remarked that label 4 should be kept, but with all numbers, e.g. 15 to 1. 

The Netherlands suggested keeping label 4 as it is good to have distinctive options, but they 
were not convinced about adding grey bars on top. 

CECED stated that label 4 is a workable one, but it should be displayed as 7 to 1. In addition, 
testing  transition  needs  to  be  kept  as  an  option.  CECED  would  be  willing  to  explore  how 
resources for this can be made available. 

Portugal argued to keep label 4. 

The Ökopol institute said that the question of testing transition was dismissed too quickly as 
there will be some products with the old label and others with the new label. Further, testing 
on how to improve communication on the absolute level of energy consumption is important. 

Italy  pointed  out  that  on  transition  periods  the  impact  assessment  would  need  to  say 
something substantial. There was a quick exercise in 2009 to test transition. 

7. 

Wrap up by European Commission, DG Energy 

The Chair concluded that there seemed more support for label 4 than for the new suggestion 
of label 3 with letters instead of numbers. Therefore, the labels to be tested would be changed 
as follows: 

1.  A+++ to D label (instead of A++++ to C) 
2.  unchanged (A-G as proposed) 
3.  will remain numeric, but revised on the basis of a number of suggestions made 
4.  will be made more attractive, but not be 7-1. 

Separately  from  the  study,  the  Commission  will  investigate  the  issue  of  transition.  Any 
contributions  in  the  forms  of  studies  from  stakeholders  would  be  welcome,  the  latest  by 
August. The Chair thanked all participants for their contribution to the discussion. 

Annex I to the minutes of 19 February 2014 - presentation by P. Wade 

74 

 
75 

 
 
 
 
76 

 
 
 
Annex II to the minutes of 19 February 2014 – presentation by Ch. Duke 

77 

 
 
 
 
Minutes of the meeting of the Consulation Forum under Article 18 of Directive 2009/125/EC 
on energy-related products on "Review of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives " 

Brussels, 11 June 2014 (14.00 - 18.00) 

Participants:   

See Annex. 

EC participants: 

Paul  HODSON  (Chairman  -  ENER),  Robert  NUIJ,  Andras  TOTH, 
Ewout  DEURWAARDER  (ENER),  Marzena  ROGALSKA,  César 
SANTOS GIL, Michael BENNETT (ENTR), Ferenc PEKAR (ENV).  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
Documents:  

 The Commission services circulated the evaluation study preparing the 
review on 4 June 2014. 

1. 

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION 

The Chair welcomed the participants to this meeting of the Consultation Forum, dedicated to 
the review of the energy labelling directive and certain aspects of the ecodesign directive. The 
Chair introduced the representatives of the Commission present in the room. 

2. 

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 

The Chair presented the agenda and apologised that the minutes of the previous meeting were 
not yet ready for adoption. He asked for any other modifications or suggestions to the agenda. 

The agenda was approved without further change. 

3. 

UPDATE  ON  THE  REVIEW  OF  THE  ECODESIGN  AND  ENERGY  LABELLING 
DIRECTIVES – DISCUSSION 

The Chair explained that a review of the energy labelling directive is required by the end of 
2014, and that it also includes a review of aspects of the ecodesign directive that could not be 
assessed  during  the  2012  review  of  that  Directive.  The  evaluation  study  had  been  running 
since May 2013, accompanied by a public consultation from August to November 2013 and a 
stakeholder meeting on the first findings and recommendations report in February 2014. The 
final report of the study was published on 4 June 2014. The purpose of the meeting today is to 
discuss issues that were identified in the study and that the Commission services consider as 
particularly relevant for the development of the review package. 

The  Chair  recalled  that  the  review  is  taking  place  outside  the  familiar  context  in  which  the 
Consultation Forum works (implementing measures and delegated acts under two directives). 
The Commission's proposal for a review package will be discussed by Council and Parliament 
in  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  meaning  that  the  Commission  will  not  share  drafts  or 
conduct further consultations with stakeholders before the formal adoption of the proposal, at 
the earliest at the end of the year.  

The  Commission  services  started  a  debate  with  the  meeting  participants,  based  on  a 
presentation formulating the main problems identified in the study. 

Problem 1 - Long rulemaking process 

1. How can we ensure that the availability of standards and certain steps of the adoption 
process do not delay the measures and their implementation? 

IT: we cannot force European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) to work faster, although 
delays can be frustrating - also to the ESOs themselves. Slowness is sometimes caused by real 
difficulties. The solution has already been found in transitional methods of measurement. 

BE:  we  should  simplify  standards  to  focus  on  energy  measurements;  they  also  make  it  too 
difficult for Member States (MS) to carry out surveillance. 

79 

 
Orgalime:  timely  mandates  to  ESOs  and  constant  exchange  during  standard  development 
could speed up processes. 

EEB: develop standard already when studying user patterns. 

2.  Should  mandatory  product  registration  be  introduced  in  order  to  ensure  the 
availability of sufficient and up-to-date data for rulemaking? (See also point 7) 

BE:  in  favour  of  mandatory  database,  good  for  both  recyclers  and  market  surveillance. 
Consumers could have access to certain parts, as well as companies who could offer services 
to consumers. However, the database should be considered only as a means of assistance to 
market surveillance, rather than market surveillance per se.  

DG  ENTR:  such  a  product  database  would  have  to  be  developed  in  cooperation  with  the 
internal  market  directorate  in  DG  ENTR.  A  separate  informal  meeting  with  stakeholders 
might be organised. ANEC welcomes the suggestion, propose to bring an expert who set up a 
multilingual database in a third country. 

UK: a different database is needed for rule-making than for market surveillance. 

DE:  it  would  be  helpful,  but  only  publicly  available  data  should  go  in  it,  otherwise  access 
problems  will  prevent  large  scale  implementation.  There  should  be  no  trade  secrets  in  the 
database. There could be problems ensuring upload by solely the appropriate actors. Energy 
efficiency information can be made public. However, neither the associated detailed technical 
information on the technology, nor the information regarding quantities placed on the market 
should be made publicly available. 

Digital Europe: several databases exist or are in development: Energy Star database, ICSMS, 
Ecopliant  and  one  developed  by  Sogeti  for  the  Commission,  so  would  it  be  necessary  to 
provide  all  these  databases  with  information?  The  Commission  responded  that  the  Energy 
Star database serves a specific purpose and that the project executed by Sogeti is more to find 
out how data could be collected and maintained. The objective is not that industry would have 
to fill in multiple databases. 

Orgalime:  against  product  registration,  because  of  confidentiality  and  intellectual  property 
risks. 

AT:  the  only  way  to  increase  surveillance  is  to  decrease  costs.  A  product  database  would 
reduce the cost of the first step, i.e., the documentary check of Regulation 765/2008. 

SK: supports database. Industry wants to self-regulate but does not want to provide data, but 
we need data to see if e.g. voluntary agreements (VAs) are ambitious enough. 

IT:  if  US/AUS  style  database  (products  to  be  registered  when  placed  on  the  market),  then 
technical documentation would have to be submitted, which contains sensitive information. If 
it  is  a  public  database,  it  should  be  different,  in  24  languages,  which  brings  additional 
difficulty  compared  to  other  markets.  The  Consultation  Forum  should  discuss  the  database 
separately. 

DK:  database  can  save  MS  time;  without  it,  they  have  to  chase  technical  documentation, 
industry  rarely  respects  10-day  deadline.  A  lot  of  time  of  market  surveillance  authorities  is 
wasted  on  obtaining  technical  documentation  from  industry.  Sometimes  Danish  authorities 

80 

 
have  to  ask  five  times  for  it,  meaning  50  days  of  waiting  for  the  technical  documentation 
instead of 10.  

CECED: industry delivers data for preparatory studies.  Products should be physically tested, 
market surveillance should get more budget, and the answer to surveillance problems should 
not be that additional burdens are imposed on manufacturers, which may not deliver expected 
results. Risks: who will compile registered data? What happens if free-riders do not register 
their products at all?  

Lighting  Europe:  if  products  do  not  correspond  to  technical  documentation,  how  can  it  be 
systematically  identified?  SMEs  will  have  to  implement  it.  There  could  be  a  large  burden 
placed  on  industry  for  having  a  database,  which  we  do  not  yet  know  if  MS  will  be  able  to 
successfully use. 

ECOS:  modern  IT  systems  can  solve  access  problems.  Public  part  is  needed.  Product 
information is difficult to collect today, standard format and platform for reporting is needed. 

European  Aluminium  Association:  database  should  be  optional,  cost  for  SMEs  should  be 
considered,  and  it  should  cover  several  regulations.  It  cannot  be  the  only  way  for  market 
surveillance. EAA is in favour of tighter market surveillance.  

AT: reminds that doing only documentary checks is allowed by Art 19 of 765/2008.  

Chair:  The  market  surveillance  package  is  going  through  legislative  process  now. 
Clarification: CECED did not ask to ignore the law regarding document checks; rather, they 
insisted on physical tests in addition. 

BE: documentary checks were sufficient under 92/75/EEC, and they are the starting point. But 
doing them on the basis of the database is not OK. The database should be used only when 
dubious  products  are  found  on  the  market.  There  is  already  a  database  in  BE  of  heating 
products which includes declarations of conformity. If products are found that are not in the 
database, producers are contacted. Unambiguous model identifiers can solve problems related 
to registration not corresponding to products on the market. 

Problem 2 - Level of ambition 

3. Should requirements aim at another level than Least Life Cycle Cost to increase their 
stringency? 

IT:  higher  ambition  leads  to  political  problems,  consensus  is  better,  less  ambition  does  not 
mean less success, we need to be closer to people. 

EPEE, Orgalime, CECED: target values are averages, if we go for Break Even Point, in 50% 
of  the  cases  there  would  be  no  return  on  investment  over  the  lifetime,  which  cannot  be 
accepted.   

NL:  Least  Life  Cycle  Cost  (LLCC)  methodology  could  be  improved  by  dynamic  pricing, 
resulting in more stringent measures (BE: agree). Price / efficiency relation does not exist for 
e.g. electronic products, where some other methodology is needed to  determine the  level of 
requirements. 

European  Aluminium  Association:  LLCC  is  not  possible  for  all  products.  Windows  can  be 
upgraded after installation by replacing glazing only. 

81 

 
Orgalime: it is of common interest to maintain the credibility of the instrument, and to keep 
key stakeholders aligned. Industry sectors have invested heavily. Criteria in the Directive such 
as significant potential for improvement should be respected.  

DK: supports equal life cycle costs. 

CECED: Long term targets and learning curves imply many assumptions on how the market 
will behave, they are very risky. 

ECOS:  LLCC  has  not  been  applied  yet,  because  by  the  time  adopted  regulations  started  to 
apply, levels were already obsolete. At least the accuracy of the LLCC calculation should be 
improved. Product database would be helpful to see where market stands. 

EEB: we cannot go too quickly, but we should go beyond least life-cycle costs, because we 
are not even reaching it currently. 

4. Is there a need to stop prioritising voluntary agreements (over legislation) when they 
are available? 

NL: voluntary agreements (VAs) are not a priority question; the criteria are so complex that 
only a few of them have been endorsed. 

IT:  in  favour  of  having  VAs  as  an  alternative  to  the  Commission  deciding  in  the  form  of 
regulations. Orgalime supports: some implementing measures were even preceded by VAs. 

DK:  VAs  are  worth  only  if  there  are  clear  deadlines  and  ambition  levels.  The  effects  have 
been meagre so far, while development has been resource-intensive. 

BE:  we  should  carry  on  with  caution.  Priority-setting  in  VAs  should  not  be  steered  by 
industry. VA market surveillance cannot be done by industry, as it would be contrary to new 
approach. For sectors with small numbers of products, VAs could be appropriate. Whether to 
opt  for  VAs  versus  Ecodesign  energy  efficiency  mandatory  requirements  regarding  new 
products could be judged on LLCC, on the basis of cost per kWh of energy saved, comparing 
it against the cost of upgrading the electricity grid.  

ANEC/BEUC: VAs so far have proven to be neither faster nor less costly. Therefore,the two 
existing VAs do not fulfil the criteria in the Directive. Take also for example the proposal for 
a VA on  game console proposal, which goes back to 2012 and still there is little progress. 
VAs should have surveillance and sanctions. Guidelines on VAs have to be finalized before 
any VA is endorsed or revised. 

Chair: reminds that the question is not about stopping VAs, but whether we should continue 
prioritising them. ECOS: NGOs have strong reservations about VAs. What would it mean to 
stop  prioritising  VAs?  There  would  not  be  a  possibility  to  have  a  VA  if  Commission  starts 
drafting  legislation?  Chair:  With  regard  to  the  above,  it  depends  on  if,  and  how,  we 
reformulate the text. 

UK: In general we prefer self-regulation over regulation. 

CECIMO: difficulties with the machine tools VA were caused by the fact that it is a complex 
product group. They had stated before that data was missing, and the consultant BIOIS came 
to the same conclusion. 

82 

 
SK: support VAs. For machine tools, the last 10 years should have been sufficient to gather 
the missing data. 

Problem 3 - Weak enforcement 

5.  Should  an  EU  market  surveillance  authority  be  set  up,  or  should  we  have 
requirements on the minimum level of surveillance? 

AT:  Regarding  considerations  of  whether  present  levels  of  market  surveillance  are  “weak”, 
this  term  is  relative.  There  is  no  discussion  in  the  Ecofys  report  about  what  would  be  a 
realistic  objective  for  surveillance.  100%  is  unrealistic.  The  reasons  of  perceived  low 
surveillance  levels  are  not  analysed  in  the  report,  except  for  lack  of  resources.  The  cost 
imposed by EU legislation determines the way products are checked, but the study also failed 
to examine that issue. IT agrees; if the Commission thinks it can do better, then Italy wishes it 
good luck. The infringement procedures concerning lack of market surveillance are one more 
example of the dirigiste approach from “Brussels” that is presently being criticised. 

NL, SK, EAA: in favour of an EU market surveillance authority, which could tackle existing 
interpretation  problems  across  MS  concerning  products  that  can  circulate  freely  around  the 
EU. SK: calls for more information on an EU authority, yearly budget, will it be parallel to 
MS  surveillance?  Chair:  The  study  and  the  current  consultation  will  be  followed  by  the 
drafting  of  an  impact  assessment,  which  will  highlight  the  topics  discussed  today.  But  the 
details of any potential EU surveillance authority will have to be developed later. 

NL:  The  Ecopliant  workshop  yesterday  has  shown  that  no  single  MS  can  perform  effective 
surveillance for ecodesign and energy labelling. In any case, more thinking is needed on how 
to cooperate and specialise in surveillance (EPEE agree). 

UK,  FR,  BE:  there  could  be  better  coordination  and  information  sharing,  playing  on  the 
respective  strengths  of  the  various  surveillance  authorities.  There  is  not  much  we  can  do  in 
addition  to  current  efforts  (like  coordination  in  ADCO)  without  infringing  the  subsidiarity 
principle.  BE:  We  cannot  define  what  minimum  level  of  surveillance  means.  Instead,  EU 
funding could be better oriented, there is less of a problem with products that are targeted by 
both labelling and ecodesign, as manufacturers will want to get rid of bad products anyway. 
For  other  appliances  covered  by  only  ecodesign,  e.g.  those  that  have  to  be  tested  on-site 
(transformers,  large  space  heaters),  targeted  support  for  improving  surveillance  could  make 
sense. 

DK:  EU  authority  would  require  such  a  change  of  competences  that  it  is  unrealistic  in  the 
current  political  context  (EPEE  agrees).  Instead,  an  agency  would  make  sense  with  an 
objective to help national surveillance with pan-European perspective. 

SE: it should not be called an “authority”, but there is an increased role for the Commission: 
enhancing  cooperation,  formal  technical  support  and  information  on  companies.  Nordic 
cooperation quoted as an example. Commission  should  set up  an online  ecodesign platform 
where everything is available together (prep studies, guidelines etc.). In order to determine a 
minimum level of surveillance, we would have to know what the metrics are (EPEE agrees). 

ANEC: No one MS can possibly cover all the requirements with surveillance, so coordination 
is needed. A more legislative solution might be helpful, preventing complicated products from 
self-declaring,  imposing  different  conformity  rules  on  them,  requiring  more  documentation, 
assistance from Notified Bodies and quality control. 

83 

 
Orgalime: there is room for more coordination, better use of ICSMS. There might not be an 
Ecodesign-specific solution to the general problems of market surveillance. 

6. Should we align surveillance provisions between ecodesign, labelling and the market 
surveillance framework? 

UK, BE, DK, NL, FR, SE: agree. BE sees even possible combination with surveillance under 
the Low Voltage Directive. NL questions how this objective can be achieved, perhaps through 
a merger of the directives? FR claims that it is doing this alignment already. 

EAA: manufacturers need a single framework under which to comply with EU requirements.  

7.  Should  mandatory  product  registration  be  introduced  in  order  to  ensure  the 
availability  of  sufficient  and  up-to-date  data  for  surveillance?  (NB  See  also  comments 
previously made re. the product registration database in Point 2.) 

EEB: product database helpful for better enforcement, also good for up-to-date requirements.  

SE: ICSMS should be the compliance database. Mandatory registration may have high costs, 
feasibility study is needed: using it with other policy areas, which product groups are suitable, 
who should maintain it. 

EAA: highlights that SMEs would then need to invest more resources; this financial impact 
should  be  quantified,  as  part  of  overall  considerations  regarding  the  use  of  mandatory 
registration. 

Problem 4 - Non-energy environmental impacts 

8.  Should  the  MEErP  be  further  revised  to  better  capture  non-energy  environmental 
impacts? 

EEB:  as  long  as  there  is  no  trade-off  with  energy  efficiency,  we  should  not  shy  away  from 
resource  efficiency  requirements.  It  would  not  add  too  much  further  delay  to  adoption 
processes. This is particularly relevant for the revision of existing measures. 

IT:  Before  deciding  to  further  revise  MEErP,  we  should  ask  ourselves  what  the  important 
requirements  are,  and  only  those  should  be  written  into  legislation.  Market  surveillance  has 
proved that sometimes odd requirements end up in legislation. 

BE, DE. DE: it is a major weak point that the labelling directive does not specify what should 
be  assessed  when  preparing  legislation,  and  unfortunately  the  Ecofys  report  is  silent  about 
this. The mandate to ESOs on material efficiency is well appreciated (BE  agrees). It will be 
interesting  to  see  if  the  material  efficiency  tool  under  MEErP  will  be  successfully 
implemented. 

NL:  Point  8  is  not  a  priority  issue.  MEErP  is  not  perfect,  but  has  already  pointed  to  non-
energy  impacts.  The  question  today  is  more  regarding  firstly,  how  might  such  impacts  be 
regulated? And secondly, how would rules be enforced? 

SE: Supports enhanced treatment of resource efficiency (in particular, repairability), but better 
coordination  is  needed  between  MS  bodies  covering  different  aspects  (example:  solid  fuel 
boilers).  It  should  also  be  explored  how  ecodesign/labelling  can  be  used  to  enhance  the 
implementation of other directives, e.g. REACH or legislation on hazardous substances. The 

84 

 
real  gap  is  that  information  on  substances  does  not  get  from  the  producer  to  the  end-of-life 
phase. Ecodesign could require that such information is gathered and  communicated.  While 
this might already be possible, the text of the directive could be complemented so that it is not 
forgotten in implementation. BE: agree with principle but it has to be cost-effective. Recycled 
products  may  be  in  breach  of  REACH,  as  they  cannot  provide  full  information  on  material 
content. This conflict would have to be resolved.  

KREAB  representing  Emerson:  in  order  to  better  exploit  the  existing  potential,  we  should 
make  use  of  the  whole  ecological  profile  in  order  to  drive  design,  i.e.,  not  solely  energy 
efficiency,  but  also  resource  efficiency.  As  there  is  a  lack  of  guidance/methods  on  such 
profiles, Emerson is prepared to work on a targeted EU methodology or standard. 

9. Should the scope of the Directives be extended to cover non-energy-related products 
(non-ErPs)? 

EEB, ANEC/BEUC: We could extend scope without starting to work on products such as T-
shirts right away. If there is an a priori exclusion, we lose the benefit of anticipatory effect on 
industry. EEB: re-launching the review later to extend the scope would be a waste of money. 
Extended  framework  directive  could  even  specify  that  e.g.  the  next  two  working  plans  will 
only cover ErPs. 

IT,  FR,  SE,  EAA:  it  is  premature  to  extend  to  all  products,  we  have  not  yet  explored  all 
possibilities under current scope, and we may lose out on energy efficiency in the process. SE: 
Does not want to exclude the possibility of extending the scope, but suggests to focus on the 
further  possibilities  that  exist  under  the  current  scope,  including  on  systems,  other  aspects 
than energy, harmonised building labelling. 

UK: We should not divert efforts; we should focus on existing mandate. Methodologies are 
missing to support a scope extension.  

BE:  premature  to  extend,  especially  for  labelling,  too  many  problems  even  within  current 
framework. 

BE:  DG  ENV  is  working  on  Product  Environmental  Footprint  (PEFp);  the  methodology  to 
cover  non-ErPs  might  be  there  for  next  revision.  PEFp  types  of  requirements  are  more 
suitable  for  these  products  than  requirements  on  specific  aspects.  Extended  producer 
responsibility  such  as  for  example  a  service  based  business  model,  inherently  guaranteeing 
efficient  use  of  resources  and  materials,  could  be  a  ground  to  be  exempted  from  specific 
durability criteria. 

DK:  the  previous  extension  (to  non-energy  related  products)  has  not  yet  resulted  in 
experience.  In  the  current  implementation,  ecodesign  should  take  more  account  of  resource 
efficiency. 

NL: Energy labelling is by definition restricted to energy. Under ecodesign, we cannot escape 
from a scope extension at one point. It is true we need vision, but we also need measurement 
methods and realistic enforcement (EPEE agrees). We do not need to wait for an extension; 
we can already practice covering other environmental aspects via the current scope. 

EPEE: scope extension would put large additional burdens on industry. Scope extension also 
needs  to  be  considered  with  regard  to  subsequent  enforceability  of  mandatory  requirements 
(CECED agrees.) 

85 

 
Orgalime:  apart  from  enforceability  issues,  there  are  more  question  marks  relating  to  other 
environmental  aspects.  For  example,  where  is  the  significant  environmental  improvement 
related  to  dismantlability?  Modern  trends  in  the  recycling  industry  lead  to  a  future  where 
dismantling  a  product  might  not  be  necessary  any  more.  Products  containing  recycled 
materials tend to have quality issues. 

CECED:  industry  already  considers  the  reduction  of  material  use  in  production  as  an 
opportunity. It happens anyway, rules would also be difficult to control, and presently there 
are no reproducible measurement methods. It could perhaps be the subject of some horizontal 
measure beyond ecodesign. 

Problem 5 - Effectiveness of the energy label 

The  Commission  services  explained  that  they  would  not  like  to  reopen  the  February 
discussion  about  the  choice  of  labels  to  be  tested.  The  consumer  tests  started  at  the  end  of 
May in FR, CZ, PT and SI (in the latter two, in place of the originally planned UK and BE). 
First results should be available in August, and the report will be made public. 

10. Should the label scale layout be changed to tackle the issue of re-scaling? 

BE, SE, DK, DE, ANEC/BEUC agree. 

DK: we should be aware of rescaling need when the lowest available class is A+ as with cold 
appliances. 

SE: the resilience of the label to changes over time should be tested. 

European  Heating  Industry  (EHI):  the  impact  of  the  transition  period  should  be  assessed  if 
rescaling is implemented. 

11. Should absolute consumption be more emphasised in the label? 

DK, UK, AT, NL, BE, DE, CECED: support emphasis on absolute consumption. 

UK,  SE:  questions  11  and  13  should  be  considered  together.  BE:  if  either  11  or  13  is 
implemented, the other is not necessary. 

NL: Framework directive could provide guidance on when to target absolute consumption in 
the regulations.   

IT: It should be case by case, the functionality of the product should be considered. Consumer 
could select products that consumes less energy but do not fulfil the expected functionality. In 
future, revision or not, we should have a better analysis of consumer behaviour and real use of 
the product. 

EAA: strongly against, the question makes sense for energy-using products only, not for ErPs, 
which  do  not  consume  themselves.  The  consumption  totally  depends  on  how  the  product  is 
operated. SE: information should be provided on the impact of the product on energy use. 

EEB: in favour of a case by case approach. If we address it in energy labelling, it should also 
be addressed in ecodesign. 

86 

 
 
EPEE:  energy  label  methodology  was  developed  for  plug  and  play  products.  For  more 
complex products, another approach is needed; large appliances are not necessarily bad. 

ANEC/BEUC: it is a very useful feature in the label, but there are some issues with how it is 
indicated and how the consumers interpret it. What is better, yearly consumption or per cycle? 
“Annum” is not understood everywhere in the EU. 

12. Should monetised information on life cycle costs be provided with the label or in the 
price tag? 

UK:  shop  trials  in  the  UK  are  still  in  process,  initial  results  show  some  promise,  but  not 
uniformly across products. In any case, it should not be placed on the label itself; consumers 
do not get the notion that more efficient products can still consume more than less efficient 
ones. There should be clarity whether retailers are allowed to provide monetised information 
on their own initiative. 

AT, NL, CECED: it may be counterproductive, since difference between highest classes may 
not lead to much money saving. 

NL: Life Cycle Costs on an EU label do not make much sense – such considerations would 
have to be delegated to regional level. The scope of the energy label does not extend to the 
price tag, which is covered by other EU legislation. 

BE:  it  does  not  make  sense  in  the  energy  label  itself;  BE  thinks  that    implementation 
elsewhere could be investigated.  

IT,  DE:  monetised  information  would  be  impossible  in  practice,  as  energy  mixes  differ 
locally/nationally. IT: the cost may not reflect the quality of the energy consumed. DE: price 
information would become obsolete quickly. 

DK: research shows that the label works because the message is clear, it would be a mistake 
to  insert  an  extra  parameter  on  it.  The  price  information  would  be  contradictory  to  the 
principle of the internal market. 

SE: agree with the MS views above. 

EAA: against - the idea does not make sense for ErPs. 

EEB: in favour of providing LCC information to consumers. If it differs across the EU, QR 
codes  could  be  used  to  give  access  to  local  information.  If  there  is  a  normalised  approach, 
EU-wide indication is possible.  

CECED, NO: price indication in the label could be confusing. 

13.  Should  the  formula  determining  the  class  be  changed  to  stop  favouring  large 
appliances? 

IT:  We  have  to  carefully  weigh  pros  and  cons.  What  is  better,  consumer  purchasing  two 
smaller products or one larger? There might be other ways of discouraging from buying larger 
products.  

EEB: even if label favours products with lower consumption, consumers are not forced to buy 
them. This is an issue only for ecodesign. 

87 

 
DK, SE: agree. DK: it is more complicated when different technologies are in the same group. 
SE: it should be logarithmic formula, based on use patterns. 

EAA,  CECED:  disagree.  EAA:  A  larger  product  does  not  always  consume  more  energy. 
Depending on the context, with a large window, solar gains may be higher than heat losses. 

ANEC/BEUC:  the  size  of  households  is  declining,  so  is  there  indeed  a  need  for  larger 
appliances? 

Other questions 

NO:  Primary  Energy  Factor  (PEFa)  problem  was  not  mentioned  today.  In  the  2012  review, 
the consultant recommended a forum for discussion on this issue. In the current study, Ecofys 
recommended a more thorough review. Suggests dedicated formal meeting on the matter. CZ, 
BE agree. IT: absolute consumption solves the PEFa issue, as it would have to be indicated in 
secondary  consumption  on  the  label.  Ecodesign  also  needs  to  be  based  on  that,  we  need  to 
keep the two pieces of legislation aligned, including the levels of the requirements.  

SE: it is written in the space heater regulations that these factors have to be reviewed. Agree 
with NO; however, the question is relevant only for energy labelling. For ecodesign, tapping 
into the energy efficiency potential is still the key aspect. It could be considered to align the 
PEFa with the Renewable Energy Sources Directive.  

Chair:  we  will  consider  whether  or  not  to  hold  a  meeting.  Ecodesign  is  an  internal  market 
directive, whereas the PEFa is set in the Energy Efficiency Directive. The latter would be the 
place to discuss any changes to the PEFa value. 

EPEE: The Ecofys  study  underlined  need  for policy coherence; this is relevant for products 
having different sets of requirements under ecodesign and under other policies. There should 
be a cost-benefit analysis of making changes to the LLCC approach. 

IT:  Can  we  go  on  having  two  legal  procedures  for  adopting  measures  (delegated  acts  and 
implementing measures)? Chair: if we propose changes to the Ecodesign directive, then it will 
presumably have to be updated to the delegated acts procedure, as has already been the case 
with the Energy Labelling Directive.  

BE: asks the Commission to take account of the wish from several MS to check whether the 
Energy Labelling Directive can be “de-Lisbonised”, in order to use implementing acts instead 
of delegated ones. AT: supports BE and reminds that Treaty Article 230 requires that it should 
be precisely defined what is delegated. Current scope of delegation is too large. Perhaps we 
should consider returning to co-decision.  

4. 

AOB 

The Commission services gave an update on planned next steps with different measures in the 
adoption procedure. 

UK: What is the status of measures on ventilation products? Chair: the draft energy labelling 
regulation is waiting for approval to start the adoption process, and the ecodesign measure is 
in turn waiting for the energy labelling regulation. 

88 

 
 
NL:    What  is  the  status  of  the  study  on  smart  appliances?  CECED:  Are  the  consultants 
chosen?  

Chair: we will try to ensure that the smart appliances study can start as soon as possible. 

Annex II to the minutes of 11 June 2014 – Attendence list 

Member States  

AT 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DK 

FI 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

IT 

LU 

LV 

LV 

LV 

NL 

NL 

NO 

NO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

UK 

Name 

LUDWAR 

SOENEN 

VERCKENS 

CREVECOEUR 

SCHORPION 

BONTCHEV 

HYKSA 

AKKERMAN 

BERGER 

HINSCH 

KÜPER 

OEHME 

NIELSEN 

WIIK 

HAKKARAINEN 

BISSON 

KARCZA FUNTEKNE  

SWEENEY 

BASILIO 

PRESUTTO 

BRAUN 

APSITE 

KAULINŠ 

MATULIS 

SIDERIUS 

VAN  DAM 

FAGERLUND 

TONSBERG 

LOPES 

BELAVIC BENEDIK 

TOPOLSKY 

RIMMER 

WALKER 

89 

Gerhard 

Bram 

Bram 

Guibert 

Hannelore 

Bontcho 

Vlastimil 

Floris 

Jan 

Thomas 

Arne 

Ines 

Peter 

Carina 

Niina 

Evelyne 

Beata  

Mark 

Emanuele 

Milena 

Ricarda 

Inga 

Dzintars 

Dainis 

Hans-Paul 

Paul 

Kirsti Hind 

Marianne 
Norman 

Carlos 

Andreja 

Erik 

Edward Michael 

Mike 

 
 
Organisation 

AEGPL 

ANEC 

ANEC/BEUC 

CECED 

CECED 

CECED/ VORWERK 

CECED/ VORWERK 

CECIMO 

CEN/CENELEC 

CEN/CENELEC/ EVA 

COGEN EUROPE 

DIGITAL EUROPE 

MAUBANC 

EVANS 

MALIZOU 

RAMBALDI 

RICHAUD 

SCHIANSKY 

CHALANÇON 

SLUPEK 

GINDROZ 

IRVINE 

TUDOROIU 

FEINDT 

DIGITAL EUROPE / CISCO 

VERSCHUERE 

DIGITAL EUROPE / DELL 

MORIARTY 

DIGITAL EUROPE / HP 

DIGITAL EUROPE / INTEL 

ORD 

GIBSON 

Samuel 

Chris 

Angeliki 

Matteo 

Candice 

Jethro 

Pierre 

Kamila 

Bernard 

David 

Alexandra 

Silvie 

Klaus 

Tom 

Jason 

Peter 

DIGITAL EUROPE / PANASONIC 

DUBRAY 

Marie-Helene 

DIGITAL EUROPE / SAMSUNG 

RANA 

DIGITAL EUROPE / SHARP 

GROEBLER 

EAA 

ECOFYS 

ECOS 

ECOS 

EEB 

EEB 

EFCEM 

EHI 

EPEE 

EPEE/ DAIKIN 

EPEE/ DAIKIN 

EPEE/ EVIA 

EPTA 

eu.bac 

EUROCOMMERCE 

EUROVENT 

Glass for Europe 

VATAVALIS 

MOLENBROEK 

SPENGLER 

TOULOUSE 

ARDITI 

WACHHOLZ 

WARREN 

RATEAU 

VOIGT 

BEELAERTS 

OKI 

BONVILLAIN 

SCUDERI 

MELCHIOR 

DAVIDSON 

VAN EYKEN 

OGGIANU 

90 

Sandeep 

Thomas 

Pavlos 

Edith 

Laura 

Edouard 

Stephane 

Carsten 

Keith 

Fanny 

Andrea 

Veerle 

Takahiro 

Denis 

Francesco 

Frederic 

Christel 

Felix 

Luca 

 
 
KREAB consultant for EMERSON 

GORKEM 

Lighting Europe 

Lighting Europe 

Lighting Europe 

Lighting Europe/ OSRAM 

OEKO INSTITUT 

ORGALIME 

ORGALIME 

ORGALIME / ZVEI  

RREUSE 

UEAPME 

PAGANO 

TIRONI 

BRIATORE 

FRANZ 

FISCHER  

LINHER 

KOCH 

ELFERS 

RIEDER 

LENA 

Marie 

Fabio 

Fabrizio 

Chiara 

Otmar 

Corinna 

Sigrid 

Lars 

Christine 

Daphne 

Guido 

91 

 
 
ANNEX  2  –  DETAILED  PRESENTATION  OF  THE  ECODESIGN  AND  ENERGY  LABELLING 

DIRECTIVE AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION  

This  Annex  sets  out  the  background  to  the  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  Directives, 
summarises  the  process  for  developing  implementing  measures  and  the  role  of  the  different 
institutions,  presents  what  has  been  achieved  and  describes  the  next  steps  in  their 
implementation. 

SUMMARY 

The Ecodesign Directive, adopted in 2005 and extended from energy-using to energy-related 
products  in  2009,  allows  the  Commission  to  prohibit  the  sale  in  the  EU  market  of  those 
models of energy-related products with the highest environmental impacts. Every three years 
an ecodesign working plan identifies the products to be studied in detail. After a preparatory 
study a product specific regulation is drafted detailing the EU-harmonised ecodesign criteria 
for that product group, which is adopted following the implementing act procedure. To date 
24  ecodesign  implementing  regulations  have  been  put  in  place,  some  of  which  have  been 
subsequently  updated  through  amendment,  and  two  ecodesign  voluntary  agreements  are  in 
place. Products covered range from household products, such as fridges, lamps and boilers, to 
professional and industrial products, such as electric motors and fans. Further products groups 
are under study for potential regulation. 

The  Energy  Labelling  Directive,  revised  in  2010,  allows  the  Commission  to  require  energy 
labels  to  be  displayed  on  energy-related  products  at  point  of  sale.  The  label  shows  which 
energy  class  a  product  achieves,  and  this  encourages  the  sale  of  more  energy  efficient  and 
environmentally friendly models through the provision of comparable information on energy 
efficiency  and  consumption  of  key  resources.  After  a  preparatory  study  a  product  specific 
regulation  is  drafted  detailing  the  energy  label  for  that  product  group,  which  is  adopted 
following  the  delegated  act  procedure.  13  delegated  regulations  now  ensure  that  a  range  of 
products,  all  of  which  are  also  subject  to  Ecodesign  regulations,  must  be  sold  with  an  EU 
energy label attached. All these measures were amended in 2014 so that the energy label will 
also be shown when selling the product via the internet. 

The  related  Tyre  Labelling  Regulation  is  separate  from  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive 
framework, but addresses the same issue for the specific sector of tyres. Its review is foreseen 
for March 2016, although the present review may have an impact on this regulation, because 
of its similarity to the Energy Labelling Directive's delegated regulations. 

Ensuring compliance by manufacturers and retailers with the legislation is the responsibility 
of  Member  States  through  market  surveillance  (see  Annex  3  for  further  information).  To 
ensure  a  common  interpretation  in  enforcing  the  requirements  and  to  organise  market 
surveillance  efficiently  across  the  EU,  Member  States'  market  surveillance  authorities 
exchange information through Administrative Cooperation groups (ADCO). Furthermore, the 
Market Surveillance Regulation provides the framework for Members States to organise their 
market  surveillance.  The  regulation  specifies  that  its  provisions  apply  to  all  Union 
harmonisation  legislation  on  products,  insofar  as  there  are  no  specific  provisions  with  the 
same  objective  in  that  legislation.  The  latter  is  at  present  the  case  for  Articles  3(2)-(4)  and 
Article 7 of the Ecodesign Directive and Article 3(2)-(4) of the Energy Labelling Directive. 
These articles take precedence over similar provisions in the market surveillance regulation. 

92 

 
To  further  improve  Member  States'  market  surveillance  the  Commission  proposed  a  new 
market surveillance regulation for products in February 2013168. 

BACKGROUND ENERGY LABELLING AND ECODESIGN  

Energy labelling 

The second oil crisis in the early '80s led the Council in 1986 to set an objective to improve 
energy  efficiency  by  20%  by  1995.  The  Gulf  Crisis  of  1990  reinforced  doubts  about  the 
security  of  oil  supplies.  Furthermore,  the  Energy/Environment  Council  of  1990  set  the 
objective  to  maintain  CO2  emissions  at  1990  levels.  While  energy  consumption  in  industry 
remained  stable  in  the  '80s,  residential  and  transport  consumption  rose  substantially.  In  this 
context, and in an effort to preserve the single market from fragmentation by similar national 
initiatives  introduced  at  the  time,  a  Community-wide  energy  labelling  scheme  (Council 
Directive 92/75/EC) was established, using the A-G scale with coloured arrows for the first 
time.  The  directive  was  supplemented  by  further,  "implementing"  Directives  on  household 
washing machines, washer-dryers, lamps, cold appliances, electric ovens and air-conditioners 
during the period 1995-2002. 

In 2010, the Energy Labelling Directive 92/75/EC was replaced by Directive 2010/30/EU. Its 
main features were the introduction of A+, A++, and A+++ classes on top of the A-G scale, 
an almost language-free label used across the whole internal market, and distance and internet 
sales  added  into  the  scope.  Previously  existing  labels  have  since  been  updated,  and  new 
labelling measures have been created for a number of additional product groups. 

Ecodesign 

In  the  course  of  the  1990's  Council  directives  were  adopted  setting  minimum  energy 
efficiency  requirements  for  boilers  (1992),  refrigerators  and  freezers  (1996)  and  fluorescent 
lamp  ballasts  (2000).  These  aimed  at  avoiding  the  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market 
(Member  States  had  initially  introduced  or  expressed  the  desire  to  introduce  national 
requirements) and at ensuring that the increased circulation of products on the internal market 
did not result in a proliferation of cheaper, low-efficiency appliances. 

To set a framework for future work, in 2003 the Commission then proposed the Ecodesign of 
Energy-Using  Products  Directive  (adopted  in  July  2005).  The  directive  allowed  for  product 
specific  implementing  measures  adopted  in  comitology,  containing  minimum  requirements 
that would remove the worst performing products from the market. The rationale behind this 
approach was to allow for fast progress in highly technical matters, while maintaining legal 
soundness and cooperation among the institutions of the EU. 

The  Energy  Labelling  and  Ecodesign  Directives  complement  each  other,  as  the  former 
promotes  the  best  products  (exercising  a  "pull"  towards  more  energy  efficiency),  while  the 
latter removes the worst from the market ("push" effect). 

In 2009, the Ecodesign Directive's scope was extended to cover also energy-related products, 
i.e.  products  that  do  not  use  energy  themselves  but  have  an  influence  on  other  products' 
energy use, such as building controls or thermal insulation. 

168 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/safety/psmsp/index_en.htm 

93 

 
                                                 
PROCESS AND ROLE OF THE INSTITUTIONS 

Both the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives are framework directives. They require 
the  Commission  to  come  forward  with  implementing  regulations  laying  down  product-
specific  requirements,  and  set  the  conditions  these  regulations  must  meet.  In  turn,  the 
regulations must be approved or not objected to by the European Parliament and Council. The 
below figure gives an overview of the legislative process. 

The process starts with establishing the priorities for Union action. Priority product groups are 
selected  based  on  their  potential  for  cost-effective  reduction  of  energy  consumption  and 
following a transparent process culminating in working plans that outline the priorities. 

A  first  list  of  priority  product  groups  was  provided  in  the  Ecodesign  Directive  itself 
(2005/32/EC, Article 16). Subsequently, the first formal working plan (for 2009-2011) and the 
second  (for  2012-2014)  were  adopted  by  the  Commission169  after  consultation  of  the 
Ecodesign Consultation Forum (composed of Member State and stakeholder experts).  

169 

The 1st Working Plan was a Commission Report addressed to the EP and Council, the 2nd Working Plan 
- on advice of SG - was a Staff Working Document. 

94 

 
 
                                                 
The products listed in the two plans (1st working plan: 1-10; 2nd working plan: 11-18) are the 
following: 

1.  Air-conditioning and ventilation systems 

11.  Window products 

(commercial and industrial)  
2.  Electric and fossil-fuelled heating 

equipment 

12.  Steam boilers ( < 50MW) 

3.  Food preparing equipment (including 

13.  Power cables  

4. 

coffee machines) 
Industrial and laboratory furnaces and 
ovens 

5.  Machine tools 
6.  Network, data processing and data storing 

equipment 

14.  Enterprises' servers, data storage and 

ancillary equipment 
15.  Smart appliances/meters 
16.  Lighting systems 

7.  Refrigerating and freezing (professional) 

17.  Wine storage appliances (c.f. Ecodesign 

8.  Sound and imaging equipment (incl. game 

18.  Water-related products 

regulation 643/2009) 

consoles) 
9.  Transformers 
10.  Water-using equipment 

There  were  also  a  number  of  conditional  products  in  the  2nd  Working  Plan  that  the 
Commission committed to study closer before deciding to launch full preparatory work (such 
as thermal insulation, power generating equipment). 

Once  the  product  group  has  been  selected,  a  preparatory  study  is  undertaken  by  an 
independent  consultant, 
interested 
stakeholders.  

technical  discussions  with 

involving  extensive 

Next, the Commission's first drafts of ecodesign and energy labelling measures are submitted 
for  discussion  to  the  Consultation  Forum,  consisting  of  Member  States'  and  other 
stakeholders'  representatives.  The  Parliament,  Member  States  and  stakeholders  are  kept 
informed (by receiving copies of the evolving texts of the draft regulations) at each stage from 
there onwards. 

After  the  Consultation  Forum,  the  Commission  drafts  an  impact  assessment,  which  after 
approval  of  the  IAB  is  taken  forward  to  inter-service  consultation  together  with  draft 
implementing measures.  

The next step is WTO notification. Following that, the two procedures follow different paths. 
The draft energy labelling delegated act is discussed in a Member State Expert Group where 
opinion(s)  are  expressed  and  consensus  is  sought  but  no  vote  is  taken.  The  draft  ecodesign 
measure is submitted for vote to the Regulatory Committee of Member  State experts. Next, 
the Commission adopts the delegated act for energy labelling. 

After this the European Parliament and Council have the right of scrutiny for each measure 
for which a period of three or four months is foreseen. Within this time the co-legislators can 
block  the  adoption  process  by  the  Commission.  Parliament  committees  sometimes  discuss 
proposals to object to measures (light bulbs and fridges in 2009) or go one step further and 

95 

 
 
 
 
vote on such a proposal (vacuum cleaners and water heaters in 2013170). On one occasion an 
objection was even adopted in plenary, blocking the measure for televisions in 2009171. 

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS 

The Directive sets out in its Annex VIII in addition to the basic legal requirements indicative 
criteria  for  assessing  whether  proposed  self-regulatory  initiatives  can  be  considered  as  an 
alternative  to  an  implementing  measure.  The  industry  which  submits  a  self-regulatory 
proposal in view of it being officially recognised by the Commission is expected to provide 
sufficient  technical  background  to  enable  the  Commission  and  the  members  of  the 
Consultation Forum to assess the proposal, notably in terms of the added value as compared 
with business-as-usual. 

The  Commission  assesses  each  self-regulatory  initiative  on  a  case  by  case  basis  after 
consulting the members of the Consultation Forum and taking into account the findings of the 
technical/economic  preparatory  study  if  available.  The  basis  for  the  assessment  whether  a 
proposal  goes  beyond  business-as-usual  is  the  information  provided  by  the  industry  and 
affected parties and, if available, the findings of the preparatory study. Voluntary agreements 
are expected to include quantified and staged objectives, starting from a well-defined baseline 
and measured through verifiable indicators. Voluntary agreements also need arrangements for 
independent verification as they are not necessarily subject to market surveillance by Member 
States. 

The  Commission  is  in  the  process  of  developing  guidelines  for  voluntary  agreements.  The 
Consultation Forum endorsed on 12 June 2014 an approach that voluntary agreements should 
cover  at  least  80%  of  the  market  share  of  a  product  category  and  that  at  least  90%  of  all 
product models of each signatory of the voluntary agreement comply with its requirements172.  

EXISTING ECODESIGN, ENERGY LABELLING AND TYRE LABELLING LEGISLATION 

Framework legislation 
•  2009/125/EC 
•  2010/30/EU 
•  1222/2009/EC  

Ecodesign Framework Directive 
Energy labelling Framework Directive  
Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other 
essential parameters 

24 Ecodesign implementing regulations 

•  1275/2008   
•  107/2009 
•  244/2009 

Electric power consumption standby and off mode 
Simple set-top boxes 
Non-directional household lamps (+amending regulation 859/2009) 

170 

171 

172 

The vacuum cleaner objection was defeated in the ENVI committee by 43 votes against and 4 in favour. 
The water heater objection was defeated in the ENVI committee by 51 votes against and 1 in favour. 
The  motivation of  the objection was  that  the  EP  wanted to  delay  the discussion of  the  draft  labelling 
measure so that it would have to become a delegated act under the recast post-Lisbon Energy Labelling 
Directive in 2010. The measure was indeed subsequently adopted as a delegated act 
With an incentive to increase this to 100% in which case no sensitive market data has to be submitted to 
the independent inspector 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  245/2009 

•  278/2009 
•  640/2009 
•  641/2009 
•  642/2009 
•  643/2009 
•  1015/2010   
•  1016/2010   
•  327/2011 
•  206/2012 
•  547/2012 
•  932/2012 
•  1194/2012   

•  617/2013 
•  666/2013 
•  801/2013 
•  813/2013 
•  814/2013 
•  66/2014 
•  548/2014 
•  1253/2014   

Fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity  
discharge lamps and for ballasts and luminaires (+ amending regulation
347/2010) 
External power supplies 
Electric motors (+ amending regulation 4/2014) 
Circulators (+ amending regulation 622/2012) 
Televisions 
Household refrigerating appliances 
Household washing machines 
Household dishwashers 
Industrial fans 
Air conditioning and comfort fans 
Water pumps 
Household tumble driers 
Directional lamps, light emitting diode (LED) lamps and related 
equipment 
Computers and servers 
Vacuum cleaners 
Networked standby  
Heaters 
Water heaters  
Domestic cooking appliances 
Power transformers 
Ventilation units 

4 amending Ecodesign implementing regulations 

•  859/2009 

•  347/2010 

•  622/2012 
•  4/2014 

Ultraviolet radiation of non-directional household lamps (amending 
regulation 244/2009/EC) 
Fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity 
discharge lamps and for ballasts and luminaries (amending regulation 
245/2009/EC) 
Circulators (amending regulation 641/2009) 
Industrial electric motors (amending regulation 640/2009) 

3 Voluntary ecodesign agreements (Report to the EP & Council) 

•  COM (2012) 684  Complex set top boxes  
•  COM (2013) 23 
•  COM(2015) 178  Game Consoles 

Imaging equipment 

13 energy labelling supplementing regulations (of which 1 amending) 

•  1059/2010   
•  1060/2010   
•  1061/2010   
•  1062/2010   
•  626/2011  
•  392/2012 

Household dishwashers 
Household refrigerating appliances 
Household washing machines 
Televisions 
Air conditioners  
Household tumble driers  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  874/2012 
•  665/2013 
•  811/2013 
•  812/2013 
•  65/2014 
•  518/2014 
•  1254//2014  

Electrical lamps and luminaires 
Vacuum cleaners 
Heaters 
Water heaters 
Domestic cooking appliances 
Energy labelling on the internet (amending the above regulations) 
Residential ventilation units 

2 Product-specific Directives still in force 

•  92/42/EEC  
•  96/60/EC   

Hot-water boilers efficiency Council Directive (ED174)  
Household combined washer-driers (EL175) 

174 
175 

ED = Ecodesign requirements 
EL = Energy labelling 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – ANALYSIS OF MARKET SURVEILLANCE BY MEMBER STATES  

The need for market surveillance  

Both  minimum  efficiency  requirements,  set  through  ecodesign  implementing  measures,  and 
energy  labelling  require  effective  market  surveillance  mechanisms  to  ensure  a  level  playing 
field for businesses and reliable product information for consumers. Such mechanisms must 
deal with two different issues: 

• 

• 

Checking whether products on the market comply with EU requirements on energy 
efficiency..  Otherwise,  high  energy-consuming  goods  would  still  be  purchased  by 
consumers,  and  worse,  consumers  may  pay  higher  prices  for  less  energy  efficiency 
products than for  higher energy efficiency ones. 

Checking  that  the  energy  labelling  is  accurate  and  in  accordance  with  the  EU 
requirements, public institutions must check that the label is put on all appliances for 
sale. The label must be visible, printed in colour, and properly displayed. The need 
for  a  visible  label  is  clear,  as  energy  labelling  can  influence  consumers'  purchase 
decisions only if this is the case. 

Organisation of market surveillance 

Member States are required to establish a market surveillance authority for ecodesign and for 
energy  labelling.  In  most  Member  States  this  is  the  same  authority,  although  in  some  this 
responsibility is divided. In a number of Member States the authority is also responsible for 
market  surveillance  of  other  EU  harmonisation  legislation  on  products,  such  as  the  Low 
Voltage Directive176. In Germany and Spain the market surveillance competence is devolved 
to the regional level and in the UK some of the energy labelling requirements are devolved to 
the local level. 

Enforcement activities 

Data collected since 2012 from Member States show a wide variety in enforcement activities 
for  the  years  2009-2013177,  including  product  documentation  checks  and  product  testing  in 
laboratories. In the case of energy labelling, these also include inspection of display of labels 
in  shops  as  well  as  in  the  case  of  distance  selling  (notably  through  the  internet).  Some 
Member  States  also  inspect  requirements  for  advertisement  and  promotional  material  to 
include the reference to the energy class. Member States use a range of corrective actions to 
deal  with  non-compliances,  including  administrative  decisions,  withdrawal  of  models, 
decisions by customs authorities to reject products at the border, voluntary measures taken by 
companies and financial penalties. 

Almost all Member States perform product documentation checks and inspection of display of 
labels in shops. In certain years, a few Member States did not have any market surveillance 
activity. In some cases Member States only acted upon receipt of complaints, while others had 
an  active  programme  involving  random  and/or  targeted  checks.  The  Commission  has  since 
early  2013  engaged  with  Member  States  that  appeared  to  have  no  activity  to  ensure  they 

176 
177 

Directive 2006/95/EC 
COWI & BIO Intelligence Service, Assessing the data collected in the framework of the Ecodesign and 
Labelling annual market surveillance data collection exercise run by the Commission, on-going. 

99 

 
                                                 
started  market  surveillance  activities  on  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling.  This  engagement 
reduced  the  number  of  Member  States  without  activity  of  4-6  in  the  years  2009/2010  to 
none178 in 2013. In general, the combined market surveillance activities of the Member States 
increased significantly between 2009 and 2013. This may be due to increased attention to this 
topic  from  the  Commission,  industry  and  NGOs,  as  well  as  from  those  market  surveillance 
authorities  already  playing  an  active  role.  However,  it  is  also  necessary  since  the  level  of 
market surveillance started from a low base and the number of ecodesign and energy labelling 
regulations increased during those years. 

Almost  half  of  the  Member  States  also  perform  product  testing  in  laboratories.  Although 
product  testing  is  only  one  way  to  check  compliance,  it  is  an  essential  instrument  as  it  is 
ultimately  the  only  way  to  establish  whether  a  product  meets  the  minimum  ecodesign 
requirements  and/or  indicates  the  correct  label  class.  The  number  of  Member  States  that 
performs  product  testing  is  increasing  since  2009/2010  when  only  a  few  Member  States 
performed  such  tests.  One  reason  that  not  all  Member  States  are  testing  products  in 
laboratories is that testing is expensive. This may also be the reason that a large share of tests 
reported  by  Member  States  are  on  smaller  appliances  such  as  external  power  supplies  and 
lamps, and on compliance with standby and off-mode requirements. 

Expenditure 

No precise figures on total Member States expenditure on market surveillance are available, 
since only about  half  of  the Member States share information of available budgets. In 2011 
this  was  estimated  at  €  7-10  million179.  Based  on  (incomplete)  data  collected  from  Member 
States it is currently likely to be around € 10 million. 

Administrative cooperation  

Representatives  of  market  surveillance  authorities  meet  twice  a  year  in  the  context  of 
Administrative  Cooperation  ('ADCO')  groups  on  ecodesign  and  on  energy  labelling.  The 
meetings  are  chaired  by  a  Member  State.  During  2012-2014  the  Netherlands  chaired  the 
ecodesign  ADCO  group,  since  then  taken  over  byd  the  UK  who  already  chaired  the  energy 
labelling ADCO group. Meetings of the two groups are held jointly; in many Member States 
responsibility for market surveillance falls in the same authority. Participation in the meetings 
has increased since the establishment of the groups; almost all Member States present at the 
most recent meeting. In-between meetings market surveillance authorities have several means 
to  exchange  information180.  Authorities  from  ten  Member  States  also  cooperate  in  the 
Intelligence  Energy  Europe  programme-supported  project  "Ecopliant"181  and  its  successor 
"EEpliant"182  examining  and  analysing  the  practices  and  tools  of  market  surveillance 
authorities  across  the  EU  in  order  to  identify  best  practices  and  produce  guidelines  and 
training seminars. 

178 

179 

180 

181 
182 

One  Member  State  has  not  yet  submitted  its  report  required  by  Article  3(3)  of  the  Energy  Labelling 
Directive, but its general market surveillance report submitted in accordance with Article 18(6) of the 
Market Surveillance Regulation indicates that it is active in the area of energy labelling. 
P.  Waide  et  al.,  Enforcement  of  energy  efficiency  regulations  for  energy  consuming  equipment: 
findings  from  a  new  European  study,  Proceedings  of  the  6th  International  Conference  EEDAL'11 
Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting 
E.g.  the  Information  and  Communication  System  on  Market  Surveillance  (ICSMS)  and  dedicated 
sections  of  the  Commission's  Communication  and  Information  Resource  Centre  for  Administrations, 
Businesses and Citizens (CIRCABC) 
http://www.ecopliant.eu/ 
http://www.prosafe.org/images/Documents/EEPLIANT/EEPPLIANT_Press_release_v2.pdf 

100 

 
                                                 
Level of compliance 

The  level  of  compliance  found  by  market  surveillance  authorities  varies  widely  from  Member 
State to Member State, from product to product and from year to year. 

While sometimes all tested products by an authority in a certain year are found to be compliant 
with  ecodesign  requirements,  more  typically  10-50%  of  products  inspected  and/or  tested  are 
found  to  be  non-compliant,  with  several  higher  cases,  even  up  to  90%.  In  the  case  of  energy 
labelling  requirements  for  dealers,  non-compliance  rates  found  by  authorities  are  typically 
between  5%  and  40%,  in  some  cases  up  to  90%.  On  average,  non-compliance  rates  found  in 
market surveillance are about 15-35%. The share of non-compliant products and labels found in 
2013 seems183 about 5-10%-point lower than in most of the years before, but preliminary data 
received for the year 2014 does not confirm such downward trend. No particular pattern can be 
identified  that  would  suggest  that  compliance  rates  are  consistently  different  in  different 
geographical areas of the EU. 

Non-compliance  comes  in  different  gradations.  For  example,  a  product  may  not  be  compliant 
with the energy efficiency requirement or other specific ecodesign requirements such as water 
consumption.  However,  non-compliance  can  also  mean  that  requirements  for  the  booklet  of 
instructions are not followed. Another form of non-compliance with ecodesign is the absence of 
a declaration of conformity. While authorities have not provided details about the type of non-
compliances  found,  the  non-compliance  rates  found  by  market  surveillance  authorities  are 
probably not representative for the entire market, because authorities often use targeted checks, 
including for example184: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Brands with a history of non-compliance 

Brands involved in international complaints 

Brands with a high market share 

Brands in low price segment of the market 

Therefore,  the  levels  of  non-compliance  found  by  market  surveillance  are  likely  to  be 
significantly  higher  than  the  overall  level  of  non-compliance  on  the  market.  Thus,  the  overall 
level of non-compliance of 20% estimated on the basis of the evaluation study is plausible. 

183 

184 

Only  for  six Member  States  the  reported  data  allowed  to  calculate  non-compliance  rates  for  all  years 
(2009-2013) and for both ecodesign and energy labelling. For other Member States there are gaps in the 
data. Therefore, statements concerning trends for the EU as a whole need to be expressed with caution. 
Best Practice Guidelines, Ecopliant European Ecodesign Compliance Project (draft 19 December 2013) 

101 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 4 – THE 2012 REVIEW OF THE ECODESIGN DIRECTIVE 

The  Commission  had  to  review  the  effectiveness  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  and  its 
implementing  measures  by  2012.  That  review  identified  eight  challenges  for  which  the 
Commission announced a number of non-legislative actions to improve the application of the 
Directive and its implementing measures185. The extent to which the actions announced in that 
review have already addressed the challenges varies as follows: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

'Complex  and  lengthy  preparatory  procedure':  the  Commission's  report  did  not 
identify a specific action to address this although in fact the time to adopt measures 
has reduced by 7 months.  

'Limited data to inform policy decisions': in 2013 a three-year contract was signed to 
develop a database on energy efficiency and other environmental aspects of energy-
related products placed on the market186. However, the collection of data under the 
project  was  limited  to  six  product  categories187  to  keep  the  scope  of  the  study 
manageable. 

'Insufficient coordination of ecodesign measures with other pieces of EU legislation': 
a pilot project was initiated in which the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
provides  technical  support  to  the  policy  DGs  for  a  number  of  products188  and 
investigates  the  possibilities  for  a  more  integrated  process  of  developing  product 
specific policy measures. The project is on-going and should be finalised in 2015. 

the 

to  deal  with 

'Insufficient  resources 
increasing  amount  of  regulatory, 
communication and standardisation work': a significant part of non-regulatory work 
was  delegated  to  external  bodies  and  experts189.  As  a  result,  the  yearly  number  of 
ecodesign and energy labelling measures published increased to nine in 2013, against 
eight  in  2012,  two  in  2011  and  seven  in  2010  (see  Annex  2).  In  2014  the  number 
dropped  to  seven,  but  only  because  adoption  and  publication  of  several  regulations 
encountered a short delay into 2015 due to the change of the Commission. 

'Question on the level of ambition of some requirements': the Commission indicated 
it  would  continue  reinforcing  the  use  of  the  expertise  of  stakeholders.  For  the 
ecodesign  regulations  adopted  in  2013  the  evaluation  study  gives  a  mixed  picture: 
the  regulation  for  space  heaters  is  viewed  as  having  the  correct  ambition  level, 
whereas the one for computers is seen as clearly too low while others are considered 
in-between190. 

'Remaining  potential  to  further  address  non-energy-related  issues  of  energy-related 
products':  the  Commission  indicated  it  would  continue  reinforcing  the  use  of  the 
expertise of stakeholders. In 2013, durability and dust re-emission requirements were 
included  in  the  ecodesign  regulation  for  vacuum  cleaners  and  nitrogen  oxide 
emission requirements were included in ecodesign regulations for space heaters and 

185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 

COM(2012) 765 final 
http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:52785-2013:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1 
Tyres, vacuum cleaners, lighting, air conditioners, computers and electric motors 
Showers and taps, commercial refrigeration, professional refrigeration, space heaters and water heaters 
EuropeDirect, EASME and New Approach consultants 
Ecofys final technical report p.21-22 

102 

 
                                                 
water heaters. Noise was also addressed for these products. Design requirements for 
recycling  were  included  in  the  voluntary  ecodesign  agreement  for  imaging 
equipment.  Requirements  for  information  provision  relevant  for  disassembly, 
recycling  and  disposal  at  end-of-life  were  included  in  the  regulations  for  space 
heaters, water heaters and vacuum cleaners. 

'Delays  in  the  elaboration  of  suitable  harmonised  standards':  external  experts  were 
contracted  and  NGOs  were  provided  with  support  to  allow  for  their  active 
involvement. This is likely to result in standards that are better fit for purpose, but the 
problem of delay remains. 

'Insufficient  and  ineffective  market  surveillance':  funding  opportunities  for  joint 
action on market surveillance between national authorities were provided191 and the 
Commission  collected  data  from  Member  States  on  their  enforcement  activities. 
While  the  data  show  an  overall  increase  in  market  surveillance  activities  over  the 
years, the level of market surveillance is still relatively low. 

• 

• 

191 

Under the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) Work Programme 2013 and Horizon 2020 call for 2014 and 
2015 

103 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 5 – DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL AND MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS 

The  model  used  for  the  impact  analysis  study  is  the  ecodesign  impact  accounting  model 
developed  by  Van  Holsteijn  en  Kemna  B.V.  (VHK),  which  incorporates  the  data  from  all 
preparatory  studies  and  impact  assessments  done  for  ecodesign,  energy  labelling  and  tyre 
labelling  legislation.  The  model  provides  results  of  a  comprehensive  accounting  of  the 
impacts  of  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  measures  on  the  energy  consumption,  the  socio-
economic  situation  (jobs),  the  industrial  competitiveness  (revenues)  and  the  technology 
development, over the period 2010-2050. A detailed description of the model is provided in 
the  report  'ecodesign  impact  accounting'192.  A  limitation  of  this  model  is  that  to  determine 
future product prices, the model applies a product-specific yearly price decrease representing 
the expectations at the time the preparatory study or impact assessment for a specific product 
group  was  drawn  up;  thus,  it  cannot  apply  more  sophisticated  approaches  such  as  learning 
curves for product prices as a function of volume of sales. Product life is assumed to be the 
same  for  all  scenarios.  For  most  of  the  products,  the  product  life  is  a  fixed  number193. 
Different technologies within a product category can have different economic lifetimes, such 
as is particularly the case for light sources. Further, the economic lifetime of vacuum cleaners 
and electronic displays varies per year in order to ensure that the stock and sales data match 
with  the  real  figures.  The  model  addresses  the  EU  as  a  whole  and  applies  EU  averages  for 
parameters  that  vary  across  the  EU  (electricity  prices,  fuel,  purchase  prices  etc.).  The  error 
margin of the model is estimated to be within 10%. 

For the baseline scenario the 'ECO' scenario of the model was used and adjusted to take into 
account 10% of loss of projected energy savings due to non-compliance. 

The model contains all product groups for which the regulations are listed in Annex 2 as well 
as a number of further products groups for which regulations have not yet been published194. 
However, for a number of products no energy savings are included in the model, because at 
the time of finalising the product-specific input for the model (November 2013) there was not 
sufficient data available to generate their energy savings. Details on specific products groups 
are provided in the VHK study "Assistance to the Impact Assessment for the Review of the 
Energy Labelling Directive and certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive".  

To  model  the  effect  of  the  different  measures,  a  number  of  assumptions  were  made  for  the 
measures concerned, as indicated below, subsequently transformed into modelling inputs, on 
which  further  detail  is  included  in  the  VHK  study.  Measures  related  to  market  surveillance 
and non-compliance rates are assumed to take effect on new products gradually between 2016 
and 2020. Other measures are assumed to take effect in 2020, except for measure 2, which can 
be effective as early as 2017. 

Measure 1 (change the label scale layout) 

192 
193 

194 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf 
There are indications that product lifetime  of a number of appliances may be decreasing: preliminary 
results of a German study show that the average first useful service life of large household appliances 
decreased  from  14.1  to  13  years  between  2004  and  2012/2013  in  Germany  (Umwelt  Bundesamt, 
Einfluss  der  Nutzungs-dauer  von  Produkten  auf  ihre  Umweltwirkung:  Schaffung  einer  Informa-
tionsgrundlage  und  Ent-wicklung  von  Strategien  gegen  „Obsoleszenz“  Zwischenbericht,  February 
2015),  but  such  indications  are  too  preliminary  to  take  into  account  and  would  not  mean  different 
assumption on product lifetime for different options.  
Commercial refrigeration, solid fuel boilers, local space heaters and air heating and cooling products 

104 

 
                                                 
In the second phase of the consumer understanding and behaviour study the four label layouts 
presented  in  this  impact  assessment  were  tested  on  consumers  for  televisions  and  washing 
machines195.  The  result  of  the  behaviour  experiment  are  expressed  as  the  proportion  of 
consumers who choose the most, the middle and the least efficient model. These results are 
shown  in  table  15  averaged  for  televisions  and  washing  machines.  The  differences  in 
percentages can, taking into account the average class represented by respectively the most, 
middle  and  least  efficient  model  be  translated  into  a  share  of  a  class  increase  or  decrease 
compared to the baseline: +0.14 class for the A-G label, -0.036 class for the numeric label and 
+0.08 class for the reverse numeric label. 

Table  15:  Consumer  purchase  choices  for  different  label  layouts  (television  and  washing  machines 
combined) 

A+++ to D 

A-G 

Numeric 

reverse numeric 

(baseline) 

(measure 1A) 

(measure 1B) 

(measure 1C) 

Most efficient 
(baseline class A+++ to A+) 

Middle efficient 
(baseline class A+ to A) 

Least efficient 
(baseline class A to B) 

38% 

37% 

25% 

45% 

34% 

21% 

37% 

36% 

27% 

42% 

36% 

22% 

Measure 2 (more emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label) 

This  measure  affects  labelled  consumer  products,  including  space  and  water  heaters. 
Approximately  20%  of  consumers  think  the  coloured  arrows  represent  absolute  energy 
consumption rather than energy efficiency196. It is assumed that because of this measure half 
of those who currently misunderstand the label on this aspect would better understand it and 
buy appliances with lower absolute energy consumption, which is represented in the model as 
buying appliances of one class higher. 

Measure 3 (require for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a certain label class) 

This  measure  affects  labelled  consumer  products,  including  space  and  water  heaters.  It  is 
assumed that all consumers who currently misunderstand the label on absolute consumption 
versus efficiency (see measure 2) would buy appliances of one class higher. 

Measure 4 (provide monetary information) 

This measure affects appliances where there is a high life-cycle cost saving: tumble driers and 
water heaters. Also washer driers and space heaters have high energy use. However, washer-
driers are a nice product not included in the modeling used for this impact assessment and for 

195 

196 

London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes 
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014. 
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes 
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014. 

105 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
space heaters the model indicates that overall life cycle cost do not decrease for more efficient 
models. Appliances bought are 5% more efficient than otherwise197. 

Measure 5 (mandatory product registration database) 

This measure is expected to increase compliance by 6%-point198 and thus reduce losses from 
non-compliance by 3%-point199. For the rule-making process: at the time of decision making 
the data will be two years more recently than previously which on average is expected to lead 
to  4%  (2  times  2%;  for  2  years)  more  ambitious  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  classes 
requirements 200.  

Measure 6 (expand the database study) 

This measure addresses the problem for the long rule-making process: at the time of decision 
making the data will be two years more recent than previously which on average is expected 
to lead to 4% more ambitious ecodesign and energy labelling class requirements (see measure 
5).  However,  on-going  experience  with  the  current  project  indicates  that  it  is  difficult  to 
collect data without commitment for the industry. Therefore, it assumed that the effect is half 
of  what  it  could  be,  2%.  For  the  same  reason  it  is  assumed  that  the  effect  on  market 
surveillance is not significant. 

Measure 7 (use learning curves for least life cycle cost)  

For  this  measure  that  applies  “learning  curves”  to  the  least  life  cycle  cost  requirement,  the 
effects are assumed to be half of the effects of the measure of changing the requirement and 
applying  instead  the  break-even  point  (see  measure  8).  Thus,  ecodesign  requirements  are 
estimated  to  be  2.5%  more  ambitious  requirements  for  products  only  covered  by  ecodesign 
and 1% more ambitious requirements for products that (also) have labels. 

Measure 8 (change least life cycle cost requirement) 

197 

198 

199 

200 

4.9% was found for tumble driers if in combination with staff training (Kallbekken et al.,  Bridging the 
Energy  Efficiency  Gap:  A  Field  Experiment  on  Lifetime  Energy  Costs  and  Household  Appliances, 
2012) 
Overall compliance rates in Australia are estimated to be at least 93%: labelling compliance is 89-98% 
depending  on  appliance  type  and  risk-based  testing  points  to  non-compliance  rates  under  8%  (Mark 
Ellis  &  Associates,  Survey  of  Market  Compliance  Mechanisms  for  Energy  Efficiency  Programs  in 
APEC economies, 2012), likely due to more effort on market surveillance compared to the EU average 
(BIO  intelligence  service,  2013)  and  due  to  a  product  registration  database.  Both  are  assumed  to 
contribute to a similar extent. Better legal provisions might also contribute somewhat to the difference 
in compliance between Australia and the EU. Therefore, the 13%-point difference in compliance rates 
between Australia and the EU is attributed to 6% for measure 5, 6% for measure 9, 0.5% for measure 10 
and 0.5% for measure 11 (no equivalent of measure 12, third party certification, exists in Australia). 
The relationship between level of compliance and lost energy savings is based on the figures reported in 
section  4.2.3,  which  indicate  that  currently  10-25%  of  products  are  non-compliant  with  ecodesign 
requirements and 20% sold without labels (and another 15% displayed in insufficient way) , while 10% 
of envisaged energy savings are being lost due to non-compliance. The average non-compliance figure 
assumed for this purpose on the basis of these figures is 20%. 
Energy  use  of  dishwashers  improved  from  1.4  to  0.9  kWh  per  cycle  between  1993  and  2013,  which 
means an average 2.2% improvement per year; for washing machines 1.27 to 0.57 kWh per cycle in the 
same period which means an average 3.9% improvement per year (VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on 
Cold  Appliances,  Washing  Machines,  Dishwashers,  Washer-Driers,  Lighting,  Set-top  Boxes  and 
Pumps, 12 March 2014). 

106 

 
                                                 
The change of the requirement to break-even point is expected to lead to 5% more ambitious 
requirements for ecodesign201. For products with energy labels this effect is likely to be lower, 
because  many  models  are,  driven  by  the  label,  already  more  efficient  than  the  ecodesign 
requirements. Instead of 5%, for products that have labels the effect is estimated at 2%202.  

Measure 9 (support joint actions) 

This measure increases the expenditure on market surveillance in the EU by about 25% and 
addresses  new  cross-border  cooperation.  If  done  on  long-term,  this  measure  is  expected  to 
increase  compliance  by  6%-point  and  thus  reduce  losses  from  non-compliance  by  3%-point 
(see footnote in measure 5).  

Measure 10 (align with market surveillance regulation) 

This measure is expected to increase compliance by 0.5%-point and thus reduce losses from 
non-compliance by 0.25%-point (see footnote in measure 5). 

Measure 11 (streamline legal provisions) 

This measure is expected to increase compliance by 0.5%-point and thus reduce losses from 
non-compliance by 0.25%-point (see footnote in measure 5). 

Measure 12 (third party certification) 

This measure is (in combination with measure 5) expected to increase compliance to 97% and 
thus reduce losses from non-compliance to 1.5%203. 

Measure 13 (EU market surveillance authority) 

In this measure the expected compliance rates could be lower than for the combined measures 
of option 2, because fraud with paperwork is more difficult to detect when parameters cannot 
be verified with a laboratory test. However, energy efficiency requirements for energy-related 
products (the only products included in the model) can continue to be verified in a laboratory 
test and therefore the assumed compliance rate is 97%, reducing losses from non-compliance 
to 1.5% (see measure 12). 

201 

202 

203 

The data in the ecodesign preparatory study for fridge-freezers pointed to a least life cycle cost point of 
246  kWh/year  and  a  break-even  point  of  232  kWh/year,  thus  5.7%  lower  (Edouard  Toulouse,  Fine-
tuning  the  ecodesign  engine:  improving  on  the  least life  cycle  cost  criterion  for  a doubling of  energy 
savings, 2013) 
For  refrigerators/freezers  it  was  found  that  roughly  two  thirds  of  the  savings  were  a  consequence  of 
energy  labelling  and  rebate/promotion  measures  by  Member  States  (which  would  not  have  been 
possible without the methodological framework and reference values of the label) and one third was due 
to the minimum standard (CECED lecture by prof. Stamminger at Energy Plus workshop, HomeTech, 
Berlin,  2001,  cited  in  Second  ECCP  Progress  Report  Can  we  meet  our  Kyoto  targets?,  Commission, 
2003) 
The  main  APEC  economies  with  both  third  party  certification  and  product  registration  that  report 
compliance  rates  (Canada,  China,  Mexico  and  Thailand),  have  such  rates  of  95-100%  (Mark  Ellis  & 
Associates,  Survey  of  Market  Compliance  Mechanisms  for  Energy  Efficiency  Programs  in  APEC 
economies,  2012).  This  corresponds  with  figures  found  in  the  EU  for  safety  legislation:  Testing  of 
consumer electrical equipment with EU safety legislation showed 18% compliance for products without 
third party certification and 75% with third party certification. When adjusting these numbers for slight 
non-compliances they are 65% and 95%, respectively (International Federation of Inspection Agencies, 
Consumer Product Safety in Europe: Results from the 2013 market study, November 2013) 

107 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 6 – THE BASELINE – PRODUCT SECTORS AND CONSUMER EXPENDITURE 

Figure  12  and  13  show  that  the  further  energy  savings  referred  to  in  section  4.3  apply  to 
almost  all  product  sectors,  but  notably  to  space  heating  and  lighting204.  Nevertheless, 
consumer expenditure on energy-related products, i.e. acquisition cost plus running cost, will 
increase,  whether  energy  prices  will  rise  fast  (figure  14Figure  )  or  slow  (figure  15).  This  is 
particularly  the  case  for  electronics  and  industry  components,  and  in  case  energy  prices 
increase fast also space heating. It is however a significantly lower compared to the consumer 
expenditure in the absence of ecodesign and energy labelling policy, as shown in figure 16. 

Baseline Primary Energy (TWh/a)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

a
/
h
W
T

TRANSPORT SECTOR

ENERGY SECTOR

INDUSTRY
COMPONENTS
CLEANING

COOKING

FOOD PRESERVATION

ELECTRONICS

LIGHTING

VENTILATION

SPACE COOLING

SPACE HEATING

0

0
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

5
2
0
2

0
3
0
2

Figure  12:  Baseline  Primary  Energy  (TWh/a)  per  product  sector,  cumulative,  Total  for  the  EU  for  the 
Entire Installed Stock. 

1200

1000

800

a
/
h
W
T

600

400

200

0

0
9
9
1

Baseline Primary Energy, New Products Only (TWh/a)

TRANSPORT SECTOR

ENERGY SECTOR

INDUSTRY
COMPONENTS
CLEANING

COOKING

FOOD PRESERVATION

ELECTRONICS

LIGHTING

VENTILATION

SPACE COOLING

SPACE HEATING

5
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

5
2
0
2

0
3
0
2

204 

The energy savings for the transport sector in figure 12 and 13 reflect the impacts of the labelling of 
tyres, see Annex 2. 

108 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 13: Baseline Primary Energy (TWh/a) per product sector, cumulative, Total for the EU for New 
Products Only. 

Baseline Consumer Expenditure (bn €/a)
4 % escalation rate, constant

a
/
€
n
b

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

TRANSPORT SECTOR

ENERGY SECTOR

INDUSTRY COMPONENTS

CLEANING

COOKING

FOOD PRESERVATION

ELECTRONICS

LIGHTING

VENTILATION

SPACE COOLING

SPACE HEATING

WATER HEATING

0
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

5
2
0
2

0
3
0
2

Figure 14: Baseline Consumer Expenditure (billion €/a) p er product sector, cumulative, Total for the EU, 
when assuming a constant energy price escalation rate of 4%. 

Baseline Consumer Expenditure (bn €/a)
4 % escalation rate until 2020; 0.5% afterwards

a
/
€
n
b

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

TRANSPORT SECTOR

ENERGY SECTOR

INDUSTRY COMPONENTS

CLEANING

COOKING

FOOD PRESERVATION

ELECTRONICS

LIGHTING

VENTILATION

SPACE COOLING

SPACE HEATING

WATER HEATING

0
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

5
2
0
2

0
3
0
2

Figure 15: Baseline Consumer Expenditure (billion €/a) p er product sector, cumulative, Total for the EU, 
when assuming an energy price escalation rate of 4% up to year 2019 and an escalation rate of 0.5% from 
2020 onwards. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16: Consumer expenditure EU 2030 in billion euro for the baseline (blue) compared to absence of 
policy (blue plus pink), assuming energy price escalation rate of 4%.  

110 

 
 
ANNEX 7 – PRODUCT REGISTRATION DATABASE: PRACTICAL DETAILS 

Before placing a product on the market, the manufacturer provides the following information 
in the product registration database: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

suppliers name and/or trademark; 

model identifier205; 

the model identifiers of equivalent models (where applicable); 

the label in electronic format; 

the class(es) and other parameters on the label206; 

the fiche in electronic format; 

the user manual (in case of ecodesign); 

website-address(es) where required product information is made available (in case of 
ecodesign, where applicable); 

EC declaration of conformity (in case of ecodesign); 

the technical documentation specified in the applicable delegated act; 

test  report  or  similar  evidence  that  requirements  are  met  and  that  the  data  and 
information on the label, in the fiche and in other required documentation is correct. 

In  addition,  the  EU  legislation  should  require  that  the  model  identifier  is  printed  on  the 
product, on the packaging, or available electronically by scanning a code on the model or the 
packaging.  That  model  identifier  could  consist  of  a  (by  the  database)  assigned  code  for  the 
identification  of  the  manufacturer  plus  a  further  code  for  the  specific  identification  of  the 
model (chosen by the manufacturer). 

The  information  entered  in  the  database  shall  be  in  one  of  the  official  languages  of  the 
European  Union.  Manufacturers  may  update  their  registration,  e.g.  by  adding  further  model 
identifiers of equivalent models. 

For products also covered by energy star, the database could be merged with the energy star 
database. 

205 

206 

Instead of being chosen entirely by the manufacturer, this could be a code of fixed length composed of a 
part identifying the manufacturer that is allocated to him and a part identifying the model chosen by the 
manufacturer. 
The database would provide specific entry fields for this for each regulation. 

111 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 8 – TRANSITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT LABELS – PRACTICAL DETAILS 

When  a  different  label  than  the  A+++  to  D  label  is  introduced  and  when  a  label  is  updated 
through  rescaling,  there  would  normally  be  two  generations  of  labels  in  stores,  making  it 
difficult for consumers to use the label to compare energy efficiency, whereas this is the main 
purpose of the energy label. 

Today, labels are introduced in shops because from a certain date suppliers add the label in 
the packaging box and then the dealer affixes the label to the product207. Thus, labels are not 
introduced  for  all  products  of  a  certain  type  on  the  shop  floor  at  the  same  time.  A  legally 
introduced  product  without  a  label  or  with  an  old  label  can  remain  without/with  that  label 
until  it  has  been  sold.  Dealers  do  not  normally  re-label  products  that  are  already  in  store 
unless the label is lost or stolen208. 

There can be four types of transitions where new labels are published by manufacturers: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

first labelling of a previously unlabelled product group 

updating the label of an already labelled product group with additional information 
or graphical design changes (not affecting the label class of particular models) 

reclassification  of  the  A-G  scale  of  the  already  existing  label  for  a  product  group 
(changing the position of particular models on the scale) 

transition  between  one  type  of  label  to  another  due  to  the  horizontal  update  of  the 
common energy label design (e.g. following a revision of the framework directive) 

To date, only  the  transitions referred to under a) and  b) have  been experienced. There have 
not  been  reports  of  a)  being  particularly  problematic  for  either  consumers,  suppliers  or 
dealers. In the case of b), the label itself did not change substantially, and the label class of a 
given  model  remained  the  same,  so  consumers  were  not  puzzled  by  the  coexistence  of  two 
generations  of  labels.  The  transitions  under  c)  and  d)  have  the  potential  to  cause  more 
confusion,  as  they  involve  a  reclassification  of  products  and  the  coexistence  of  possibly 
substantially  different  energy  labels.  If  labels  are  not  updated  simultaneously  after 
reclassification, models having the same energy efficiency risk being indicated as belonging 
to  different  classes  in  the  shops,  which  would  mislead  consumers  and  would  put  certain 
suppliers at an undue disadvantage.  

It is therefore necessary to improve the current approach so that consumers are not confronted 
with  products  that  they  cannot  correctly  compare  because  the  label  on  one  of  them  is  of  a 
previous label generation. 

To achieve this, the following approach is envisaged: 

207 

208 

In  the  case  of  lamps  suppliers  print  the  label  on  the  packaging.  In  the  case  of  luminaries  and  certain 
types of air conditioners suppliers can alternatively make the label available electronically. 
At the energy labelling conference of the German Energy Agency on 7 July 2014 dealers indicated that 
the energy label is the single most common stolen item in German shops. Consumers remove the energy 
label  from  products  to  compare  products,  remember  it  for  future  shopping  or  online  shopping.  This 
creates problems for retailers as they need to obtain a new copy of the label, which they claim is hard to 
get  from  suppliers  (although  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  requires  suppliers  to  deliver  labels 
promptly on request for dealers - Article 5(d)). 

112 

 
                                                 
1.  Suppliers would, for a period of several months (e.g. 6) after the date of application of 
the  new  label  for  them,  supply  both  the  new  and  the  old  label  with  their  products. 
They  would  also  be  required  to  make  the  new  label  available  for  download  on  their 
websites. 

2.  In this transition period, dealers would display the models with the old label but keep 

the new label ready. 

3.  On a specific date at the expiry of the transition period, dealers would be required to 
replace the old label with the new one on all products that are on display in the shops. 
The date could be made to fall in a period when dealers review their stocks anyway 
(e.g. January or July). It could also be given as a time period, rather than a single date 
(e.g. no new labels are to be on display before 1 January, no old labels are to be on 
display after 15 January). 

4.  For  any  products  that  were  already  in  the  shop  before  the  transition  period  started, 
dealers  would  have  to  obtain  a  new  label  from  the  supplier  (it  could  also  be  made 
available on-line for download on the suppliers' websites). 

5.  Online and paper promotional material would also be required to display the new label 

classes of the products at the end of the transition period, but not before. 

6.  Member  States  would  be  required  to  set  up  promotional  information  campaigns  to 
prevent that consumers who have recently consulted energy labels get the impression 
that less-efficient products are being offered to them. 

Note: 

For  lamps,  where  the  label  is  printed  directly  on  the  packaging,  a  different  solution  is 
necessary, such as printing both the old and new label on the packaging for a specific period 
of time, or a switch to providing the label on the shop shelf instead of the packaging. 

113 

 
 
ANNEX 9 – ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN CALCULATION 

Administrative  and  compliance  costs  have  been  analysed  for  each  measure  separately. 
Administrative  costs  are  defined  as  “the  costs  incurred  by  enterprises,  the  voluntary  sector, 
public  authorities  and  citizens  in  meeting  legal  obligations  to  provide  information  on  their 
action  or  production,  either  to  public  authorities  or  to  private  parties”.209  The  Commission's 
in-house  Administrative  Burden  Calculator  was  used  to  calculate  administrative  cost  for 
businesses and public authorities for measures 1 and 3. 

Measure 1A: Label transition for the A-G label 

As indicated in annex 8, suppliers will have to supply two labels instead of one for a period of 
6 months at a cost of € 0.3 to print a label210.  For an annual 300-400 million products sold 
with labels211 (excluding 500-2000 million lamps), this means a total of approximately € 50 
million  for  suppliers  to  temporarily  provide  a  second  label  for  a  transition  of  one  label  to 
another  for  all  product  groups  combined.  Furthermore,  suppliers  may  have  to  supply  some 
replacements labels on request of dealers depending on the delivery channel for replacement 
labels (see Annex 8). 

Dealers  have  to  re-label  products.  For  the  Australian  re-labelling  program  in  2000  it  was 
assumed  that  10%  of  units  sold  during  their  3-month  transition  period  passed  through 
showrooms  and  incurred  label  change  costs,  while  90%  would  be  delivered  direct  from 
warehouse  to  buyer  and  needed  no  label  change212.  Thus,  based  on  annual  sales, 
approximately  2.5%213  of  products  need  re-labelling  in  brick-and-mortar  shops  or  on  the 
internet. Little effort is needed to re-label a product in the case of internet shops214 for which 
electronic labels are available215 and in the case where new labels had already been provided 
by suppliers in the period running up to the re-labelling date. In cases where the label has to 
be requested from the supplier, the effort will be slightly higher (see Annex 8). An average 
time of five minutes per product is assumed resulting in € 10 million costs for a transition of 
one label to another for all products groups combined216.  

These  administrative  costs  are  incurred  every  5-10  years,  meaning  an  annual  cost  of  5-10 
million for suppliers and 1-2 million for dealers.  

Measure 1B and 1C: Numeric / reverse numeric label 

209 
210 

211 

212 

213 
214 

215 

216 

Commission impact assessment Guidelines 
Estimated at 0.50 Australian dollar (exchange rate at the time approximately 0.6 €/Australian dollar) by 
George  Wilkenfeld  and  Associates  Pty  Ltd,  Regulatory  Impact  Statement,  Energy  Labelling  and 
Minimum  Energy  Performance  Standards  for  Household  Electrical  Appliances  in  Australia,  February 
1999, p. 40 
Of which approximately 100 million vacuum cleaners, 100 million displays, 50 million consumer white 
goods, 40 million cooking appliances, 10 million room air conditioners and 60 million heating products 
George  Wilkenfeld  and  Associates  Pty  Ltd,  Regulatory  Impact  Statement  Energy  Labelling  and 
in  Australia: 
Minimum  Energy  Performance  Standards  for  Household  Electrical  Appliances 
Supplementary Cost-Benefit Analysis on Transition to a Revised Energy Label, November 1999, p. 19 
10% of sales during three months equal 2.5% of sales during one year. 
In  the  UK  between 11%  and  24% of  energy-related  products  were  bought online  in  the  period 2010-
2012,  with  the  exception  of  computers  for  which  this  figure  was  already  more  than  80%  (Consumer 
Focus 'Under the influence? Consumer attitudes to buying appliances', 21 December 2012) 
Cf.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  518/2004  with  regard  to  labelling  of  energy-related 
products on the internet; and SWD(2014) 57 final 
At an employee tariff of € 14.30 per hour representative for shop sales workers 

114 

 
                                                 
For  the  numeric  and  reverse  numeric  labels  no  label  transition  is  necessary  once  those  new 
labels design are in place. However, the transition from the current A+++ to D label to one of 
these two labels has administrative costs for dealers. These are the same cost as calculated for 
measure 1A, € 50 million for suppliers and € 10 million for dealers, but, as mentioned, they 
will only be incurred once. 

Measure 2: More emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label 

This  measure  requires  a  consumer  understanding  and  behaviour  study  to  select  the  best 
solution  for  providing  more  emphasis  on  absolute  energy  consumption  in  the  energy  label 
layout,  estimated  at  €  150.000-250.000.  Applying  the  result  of  the  study  does  not  require 
additional effort compared to business-as-usual. 

Measure 3: Require a higher efficiency for larger appliances to reach a certain label class 

This  measure  does  not  require  additional  effort compared to business-as-usual: the practical 
effect  is  that  those  models  that  are  affected  will  have  a  lower  class  on  the  energy  label 
compared to what they would have if this measure does not apply. This does not affect design 
of a product, nor any of the administrative requirements that have to be met. 

Measure 4: Provide monetary information 

Dealers/installers  of  tumble  driers  and  water  heating  equipment  (the  products  to  which  this 
measure  applies)  will  have  to  access  a  webtool  for  each  model  concerned  and  select  their 
geographical location and the energy consumption indicated on the label of the product. The 
webtool provides them with the cumulative annual running cost that they will have to display 
near the price tag in their shop and/or catalogue. In addition, staff needs a brief training every 
4-5 months217. A trial in the UK estimated the cost for dealers for one product group (washer-
driers)  at  £  100.000  for  the  UK.  When  adjusted  to  the  EU  as  a  whole  this  amounts  to 
approximately € 1 million per year per product group218. For tumble driers and water heating 
equipment combined that results in a total additional administrative burden for this measure 
above business-as-usual of approximately € 2 million per year219. 

The development of the webtools for these products combined by a contractor on behalf of the 
Commission is estimated at € 100.000 with € 10.000 per year for maintenance.. 

Measure 5: Mandatory product registration database 

The key burdens generated by this option are expected to be similar to those for the product 
registration database for radio equipment220: 

– 

– 

217 

218 
219 

220 

Training  staff  to  become  acquainted  with  the  system:  this  is  a  one-time  investment 
and not considered significant. 

Depending  on  the  design  for  the  operation  of  the  database,  upload  manufacturer 
information and obtain manufacturer code. This is again considered not significant. 

"When the training is not refreshed, the effect declines sharply after 4–5 months, implying a need for 
reminders  of  the  training  to  maintain  the  effect  over  time"  (Kallbekken  et  al.,    Bridging  the  Energy 
Efficiency Gap: A Field Experiment on Lifetime Energy Costs and Household Appliances, 2012) 
The UK has approximately 64 million inhabitants; the EU approximately 506 million. 
At  an  employee  tariff  of  €  41.50  per  hour  representative  for  managers  and  €  14.30  per  hour 
representative for shop sales workers 
SWD(2012) 329 final, p.31 

115 

 
                                                 
– 

Upload product specific information: this implies selecting appropriate information, 
formatting,  and  actually  uploading  the  information.  This  is  considered  to  be 
significant. 

However, because the model code would be determined by the manufacturer and not provided 
by a pre-registration, the system is less complex than that for radio equipment. On the other 
hand,  the  amount  of  data  to  be  provided  may  be  more  than  in  the  case  of  radio  equipment. 
Manufacturers  of  radio  equipment  claimed  high  administrative  costs.  However,  the  study221 
and  impact  assessment  found  that  that  perceived  high  additional  burden  seemed  to  arise 
mainly from the fact companies were not complying with their existing obligations: "Should 
the  current  obligation  to  establish  a  technical  file  prior  to  the  placing  of  a  product  on  the 
market be systematically fulfilled, additional costs would be limited." Also for the registration 
of  energy–related  products  companies  are  already  obliged  to  assemble  all  the  required 
documents and information, and to make this information available to authorities on request. 
Thus,  the  only  additional  administrative  burden  is  to  register  the  information.  For  radio 
equipment the volume of registration was estimated at 5000 models per year. Such figure is 
likely to be  representative also for  lamps, but  too  high  for  other  product groups covered by 
ecodesign  and/or  energy  labelling  and  an  average  figure  of  1500  models222  per  year  per 
product  group  would  be  a  more  appropriate  estimate223.  Two  hours  of  collection  and 
registration  time  per  model  family  is  assumed224,  which  corresponds  with  the  estimated 
administrative costs borne by suppliers for Australia's product registration database225. For the 
+/-  30  product  groups  covered,  the  total  additional  cost  of  registration  is  estimated  at  €  3 
million  per  year,  or  €  1.5  million  in  case  the  registration  only  concerns  products  that  have 
energy labels.  

The  burden  for  Member  States'  market  surveillance  authorities  to  obtain  documents  is 
significantly  reduced  by  this  measure.  It  is,  however,  assumed  that  they  spend  the  freed-up 
time on other market surveillance activities instead thereby contributing to higher compliance 
rates. 

The  costs  for  the  Commission  to  set  up  the  database  are  likely  to  be  similar  to  the  product 
registration base for radio equipment, adjusted for the number of models to be registered and 
kept  in  the  database.  The  cost  for  the  product  registration  base  for  radio  equipment  was 
estimated at € 300.000 investment and € 30.000 annual maintenance costs for registration of 
5000  models  per  year226.  Based  on  the  above  estimate  of  new  models  per  year  per  product 

221 

222 

223 

224 
225 

226 

Technopolis Group report "Impact Assessment concerning a proposed mandatory registration system in 
the scope of directive 1999/5/EC, 5.10.2009. 
Equivalent  models  (i.e.  models  that  are  exactly  the  same  with  regard  to  energy  efficiency,  but  sold 
under different model codes or even brand names) can be registered through a single registration and 
therefore count here as one model. 
For  electronic  products  2500-3000  per  product  group  based  on  Energy  Star  registrations,  for  many 
domestic appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers, tumble driers vacuum cleaners it is likely 
to  be  much  lower,  possibly  as  low  as  500.  Industry  databases  for  other  domestic  appliances  such 
refrigeration and cooking points to about 1500-2000. For heating/cooling equipment it is estimated to 
be  lower,  in  the  range  of  250-1000  depending  on  the  specific  product  group.  For  commercial  and 
industrial  products    it  would  be  in  the  range  of  2000-3000  for  motors  and  fans,  but  as  low  as  50  for 
power transformers (VHK) 
At an employee tariff of € 32.10 per hour representative for professionals 
100 Australian  dollar  per  model  (exchange rate  at  the  time  approximately  0.6  €/Australian  dollar). In 
addition,  Australia  charges  a  registration  fee  of  150  Australian  dollar  per  model  (George  Wilkenfeld 
and  Associates  Pty  Ltd,  Regulatory  Impact  Statement  Energy  Labelling  and  Minimum  Energy 
Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia: Supplementary Cost-Benefit 
Analysis on Transition to a Revised Energy Label, November 1999, p. 18) 
SWD(2012) 329 final, Annex X 

116 

 
                                                 
group of about 1500 for the +/- 30 product groups covered, this would imply approximately € 
3  million  investment  and  €  300.000  annual  maintenance  costs,  or  half  of  that  in  case  the 
registration only concerns products that have energy labels. 

Measure 6: Expand the database study 

The budget for the current three-year study covering six products was € 500.000227. The cost 
for the Commission to cover about 30 products would thus be approximately € 1 million per 
year. If only products that are covered by ecodesign only and not those (also) with labels need 
to covered by the study (as in the case of option 1+), then the costs would be halved. 

Measure 7: Use learning curves for least life cycle cost 

Applying “learning curves” as sensitivity analysis in determining the least life-cycle cost can 
be  done  as  part  of  the  work  undertaken  in  the  preparatory  studies  for  product  groups  under 
study and therefore does not cause significant administrative costs. 

Measure 8: Change 'least life cycle cost' requirement 

This measure does not require administrative effort additional to business-as-usual. However, 
there  are  likely  to  be  compliance  costs  for  business  in  order  to  meet  the  more  stringent 
requirements. Such compliance costs are likely to be negligible for product groups that have 
energy  labels,  where  almost  all  businesses  would,  because  of  the  energy  label,  in  any  case 
already go beyond the minimum ecodesign requirements. For product groups only covered by 
ecodesign requirements (and no energy labels) the compliance cost in terms of redesign may 
be  significant  for  some  businesses.  A  recent  case  study  for  laptops  estimated  that  the  total 
design  costs  for  compliance  with  the  seven  applicable  EU  internal  market  directives  and 
regulations, including ecodesign, is € 8 million per year228. Assuming that: 1) one quarter of 
that  cost  is  due  to  ecodesign229  ;  2)  changing  the  least  life-cycle  cost  requirement  to  break-
even point may increase the design cost by half; and 3) laptops constitute about one third of 
the ecodesign regulation for computers, the total additional compliance cost above business-
as-usual for the 15 regulations for product groups which have no energy label could be € 45 
million per year230.  

Measure 9: Support joint surveillance actions 

Joint  surveillance  actions  fit  the  requirements  and  description  of  2014  Horizon2020  call  on 
the  energy  efficiency  market  uptake  segment  of  "Ensuring  effective  implementation  of  EU 
product efficiency legislation" for which the indicative cost was 1.5-2 million euro for the EU 
budget231.  Such  a  call  would  be  opened  every  year  with  the  aim  to  support  several  joint 
actions per year. 

227 
228 
229 

230 

231 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/tender/doc/2013/tender_specifications_eaci_iee_2013_002.pdf 
SWD(2014) 23 final part 2, p. 52 and 54 
Although there were seven applicable EU internal market directives that caused the total cost, not all of 
those impacted design significantly and thus the weight of ecodesign among the seven is estimated to be 
higher than one seventh: at one fourth. 
€  8  million  divided  by  4  (estimated  share  of  impact  of  ecodesign  in  EU  internal  market  directives 
applicable to laptops) multiplied by 0.5 (50% extra design costs on top of business-as-usual due to the 
change  of  least  life  cycle  cost  requirement  to  break-even  point  requirement)  multiplied  by  45  (to 
account for all 15 product groups, because laptops only constitute 1/3 of a product group). 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2362-ee-15-
2014.html 

117 

 
                                                 
Measure 10: Align with market surveillance regulation  

This measure does not require additional effort compared to business-as-usual. 

Measure 11: Streamline legal provisions  

This measure does not require additional effort compared to business-as-usual, in particular if 
the Directive(s) would be changed to (a) Regulation(s). 

Measure 12: Third party certification 

Third  party  certification  requires  product  testing  to  be  done  by  a  third  party.  Current 
ecodesign and energy labelling requirements already require businesses to test their products, 
but they can do so in in-house facilities. Thus, the extra cost are the fee for the third party and 
any  logistics  costs.  These  extra  costs  are  estimated  at,  on  average,  €  3000  per  model232. 
Taking an average number of models tested per year per product group of 1500233, the total 
additional  cost  of  third  party  certification  for  the  around  30  product  groups  covered  is 
estimated at € 135 million per year. 

Measure 13: EU market surveillance authority 

The costs related to the establishment of an EU market surveillance authority would entail the 
building and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure, such as (i) establishment of a new 
EU  Agency,  (ii)  hiring  EU  market  surveillance  inspectors,  (iii)  providing  the  new  Agency 
with facilities necessary for performing its activities, etc. A precise estimate of these costs is 
not  possible.  However,  the  order  of  magnitude  can  be  estimated  by  referring  to  existing 
agencies  that  carry  out  similar  tasks,  in  particular  the  European  Commission's  Health  and 
Consumers Directorate-General directorate known as the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) 
which performs market surveillance. The budget of FVO is estimated at around € 30 million 
annually234. In this respect, it can be reasonably envisaged that the annual budget needed for 
an EU Agency responsible for market surveillance of ecodesign and energy labelling would 
be  €  30  million.  At  the  same  time,  Member  States  would  no  longer  perform  market 
surveillance, spending an estimated € 10 million less per year (see Annex 3). 

Measure 14: Review MEErP 

This  measure  requires  one  expert  study  to  review,  and  where  necessary  propose  updates  to, 
the MEErP, estimated at € 100.000-200.000.  

Measure 15: Extension of the scope to non-energy related products 

So  far,  the  focus  of  implementing  measures  under  ecodesign  has  been  on  requirements 
related,  primarily,  to  the  use  phase.  Conformity  with  any  ecodesign  requirements  for  non-
energy-related  products,  such  as  food  and  drink  products,  would  rely  on  the  provision  of 
information by suppliers to ensure that products comply with those requirements. Producers 
or importers of such products would have to certify that the inputs used in their products were 
produced by their supplier in certain ways so that the final product would meet the minimum 
requirements.  For  certain  requirements  they  would  also  need  to  know  the  values  of  the 
relevant environmental impact indicators. Thus, unless there is direct control of the upstream 

232 
233 
234 

VHK 
See analysis of administrative burden of measure 3 
SWD(2013) 33 final, section 5.2.1.3 

118 

 
                                                 
production  stages,  it  would  require  producing  and  exchanging  more  environmental 
information  along  the  production  chain.  It  would  also  require  the  use  of  declaration  or 
certification schemes235. 

The cost of carrying out a life cycle assessment for one parameter for a specific model of an 
industrial or agricultural product typically costs between € 3.500-11.000, but can cost as much 
as € 50.000 or more. The costs of certification are estimated between € 1.500 and € 5.000 per 
product236. Assuming the same amount of products groups as for energy-related products with 
the same average figure of 1500 models per year per product group (see above, measure 3), 
the  total  cost  would  in  the  range  of  €  225-720  million.  In  addition,  there  likely  to  be 
compliance  cost  for  redesign  of  products.  Based  on  the  estimate  of  compliance  cost  for 
measure 8 (but applying to 30 instead of 15 product groups) these could be in order of € 100 
million. 

Further,  market  surveillance  on  such  requirements  would  probably  require  considerable 
resources  to  be  effective  with  a  higher  risk  of  non-compliance  in  comparison  to  current 
ecodesign  requirements  based  on  product  testing237.  This  is  taken  into  account  through 
measure 13 'EU market surveillance authority'. 

Finally, a large majority of respondents to the public consultation across all stakeholder types 
expects  an  increase  of  administrative  burden  for  the  Commission  from  this  measure238. 
Assuming the Commission staff dealing with ecodesign and energy labelling would need to 
be doubled, about 15 additional posts are necessary239 at an average cost FTE of € 131.000240. 

235 
236 

237 
238 
239 

240 

CSES, Evaluation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) Final report, March 2012 
OECD, Global Forum on Trade and Climate Change, Paris, 9 and 10 June 2009, Counting Carbon in 
the Market Place, p.16 
CSES, Evaluation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) Final report, March 2012 
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.69 
Current Commission staff for ecodesign and energy labelling is estimated at 11 posts in DG Energy, 3 
in DG Enterprise and Industry and 1 in other DGs combined. 
COM(2013) 75/3, p59 

119 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 10 – AMBITION LEVEL OF MEASURES 

The evaluation study provides the following analysis of the ambition level of ecodesign (ED) 
and energy labelling (ELD) regulations: 

"The survey asked stakeholders for their opinion on the ambition of ED and ELD measures 
adopted  to  date  [..].  Most  stakeholder  groups  agree  that,  across  product  groups,  the 
implementing measures and labels have shown ambition that was too low compared to what 
is technically and economically feasible. Government bodies were divided between assessing 
the level of ambition as too low and correct241. Industry found the ambition of the measures to 
be  about  right.  Ambition  clearly  varies  by  product  group.  The  consultation  pointed  out  the 
following broad perceptions by stakeholders on the energy saving ambition of ED measures: 

•  Correct ambition for all stakeholders: boilers, standby and off-mode losses, external 

power supplies, circulators in buildings, simple set-top boxes; 

•  Correct  to  too  low  for  government  bodies,  mostly  correct  for  other  groups:  electric 

motors, vacuum cleaners; 

•  Too  high  for  industry,  too  low  for  environmental  groups,  correct  for  other  groups: 

non-directional lighting; 

•  Correct or too high for industry, correct to too low for government bodies, too low for 

other groups: water heaters, directional lighting; 

•  Correct  for  industry,  correct  to  too  low  for  government  bodies,  too  low  for  other 
groups: tertiary lighting, room air conditioning, fans, domestic refrigerators, washing 
machines, dishwashers, laundry driers, water pumps; 

•  Correct to too low for industry, correct to too low for government bodies, too low or 
much  too  low  for  other  groups:  PC’s  and  servers,  complex  set-top  boxes,  imaging 
equipment; 

•  Correct for industry, too low too much too low for other groups: televisions. 

The study team has done its own investigation on the ambition of product groups. As already 
mentioned this analysis was limited in several ways. Nonetheless, we feel confident to say that 
the  level  of  ambition  on  electric  motors,  standby  and  off-mode  losses,  external  power 
supplies,  circulators  in  buildings  and  non-directional  lighting  was  correct.  In  addition,  the 
level of ambition on domestic refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers was too low 
and for televisions was much too low." 

241 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  government  bodies'  original  opinion  of  the  measures  ambition  level, 
expressed  through  qualified  majority  voting  in  the  regulatory  committee,  is  "correct"  by  default.  It 
could be that (1) the survey responses do not represent the opinion of the Member States as a whole, (2) 
additional evidence has come forth that made Member States change their opinion. 

120