COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT FITNESS CHECK Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL on the review of implementation of Regulation (EC)No 122/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) and the Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel
Date: 2017-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, European standard, application of EU law, consumer information, eco-label, environmental impact, environmental protection, environmental standard, pollution control measures

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.6.2017  SWD(2017) 253 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT FITNESS CHECK Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL on the review of implementation of Regulation (EC)No 122/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) and the Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel   {COM(2017) 355 final} {SWD(2017) 252 final}  
 
 
 
Section 2 Introduction 

This fitness check covers Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and Council 
of  25  November  2009  on  the  voluntary  participation  by  organisations  in  a  Community  eco-
management  and  audit  scheme  (EMAS)1  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  66/20102  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  Council  of  25  November  2009  on  the  EU  Ecolabel,  and  their  contribution  to  the 
sustainable  consumption  and  production  (SCP)  policy  framework.  It  is  a  retrospective  exercise, 
aiming to assess the two Regulations’ actual performance. 

The  purpose  of  the  fitness  check  is  to  evaluate  the  implementation  of  EMAS  and  EU  Ecolabel 
Regulations and to assess their effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. 
The fitness check is not evaluating the performance of the SCP policy framework as a whole, nor 
individual instruments other than EMAS and the EU Ecolabel. 

The  fitness  check  falls  under  the  Commission’s  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme. 
The  work  presented  here  is  guided by  the  fitness  check  mandate  for  the  EMAS  and  EU  Ecolabel 
Regulations3.  As  the  fitness  check  is  a  retrospective  exercise,  it  does  not  answer  forward-looking 
questions included in the mandate. 

The fitness check will be used by the Commission as a basis to inform future policy decisions on 
both schemes. 

Section 3 Background to the initiatives 

3.1 EMAS and the EU Ecolabel as part of the sustainable consumption and 
production framework 

Economic activities connected to products and services have an impact on the Environment and on 
people’s  health  and  quality  of  life.  Sustainable consumption  and  production  mitigate  the  negative 
environmental impacts of such activities and balance the need for such mitigation with the need for 
economic  and  social  development.  Instruments  like  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  encourage 
voluntary activities with reduced environmental impact and improve their economic potential. 

EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are part of the EU policy framework for sustainable consumption and 
production. The EU Ecolabel was created in 1992 and EMAS in 1995 but both were re-launched as 
part  of  the  Communication  on  sustainable  consumption  and  production  and  the  sustainable 
industrial policy action plan (SCP action plan)4 in 2008. Since 2008, several initiatives have further 
developed the framework on sustainability. These include: the Communication on EUROPE 2020 

1 Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary 
participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS). 
2 Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel and 
their contribution to the Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) policy framework. 
3 Fitness check Mandate for EU-EMAS and EU-Ecolabel regulations. 
4 COM(2008) 397. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
— a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;5 the Communication on a Roadmap to a 
Resource  Efficient  Europe;6  the  seventh  EU  Environmental  action  programme  calling  for  a  more 
effective  and  coherent  SCP  policy  framework7  and  the  2015  EU  action  plan  for  the  circular 
economy.8 

In  the  Communication  ‘Building  the  single  market  for  green  products  —  facilitating  better 
information  on  the  environmental  performance  of  products  and  organisations’9,  the  Commission 
recognised  the  need  for  a  common  method  to  quantify  the  environmental  impact  (footprint)  of 
products  and  organisations  and  benchmark  them  against  each  other  (within  the  same  product 
group10 or sector). Such work has clear links to both the EU Ecolabel and EMAS, but as this work 
is still in the pilot phase, results were not available for inclusion in this fitness check. 

Figure 1: EMAS, the EU Ecolabel and other SCP tools 

5 COM(2010) 2020. 
6 COM(2011) 571. 
7 Decision No 1386/2013/EU. 
8 COM(2015) 614/2. 
9 COM(2013) 196. 
10 The EU Ecolabel Regulation defines a product group as ‘a set of products that serve similar purposes and are similar in terms of 
use, or have similar functional properties, and are similar in terms of consumer perception. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
It is important to understand certain key characteristics of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel within this 
framework.  In  particular,  there  are  key  differences  in  the  nature  and  role  of  the  two  Regulations 
compared  to  other  SCP-related  policies  which  also  introduce  specific  limitations  to  this  fitness 
check.  For  further  information  see  sections  3.2  (objectives),  3.3  (intervention  logic)  and  5.3 
(limitations). 

Voluntary vs mandatory: EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are voluntary Regulations giving support to 
producers and organisations that go beyond what is required by legislation in their efforts to protect 
the environment and quality of life. In that sense, they are intended for environmental frontrunners 
and  their  uptake  will  naturally  depend  on  the  attractiveness  and  promotion  of  the  schemes  to 
producers and consumers. Other key EU legislative interventions in the SCP toolbox are mandatory 
instruments with the expectation of full uptake on the market. Ecodesign sets mandatory minimum 
requirements  for  energy  related  products  on  the  market  and  the  Energy  Label  obliges  mandatory 
consumer  information  intended  for  comparison  of  products  with  a  primary  focus  on  energy 
consumption in the use-phase.   

Products and organisations: The EU Ecolabel, Ecodesign and the Energy Label are policies for 
products.  EMAS  is  the  only  EU-driven  SCP  instrument  focused  on  achieving  progressive 
environmental  improvements  in  organisations.  At  global  level  it  competes  with  ISO  14001  -  a 
voluntary initiative also focusing on the environmental management of organisations. Both EMAS 
and  ISO  look  at  the  potential  for  improvement  within  the  individual  organisation  and  rely  on 
knowledge, understanding and data about the specific organisation. For EMAS this is supported by 
guidance for specific sectors provided in Sectoral Reference Documents (SRD's). 

The  SCP  product  policies  use  knowledge,  understanding  and  data  about  products  to  establish 
benchmarks  or  categories  on  the  market  based  on  individual  environmental  concerns  or  overall 
environmental  performance.  For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  this  benchmark  is  defined  by  the  EU  Ecolabel 
criteria requirements.  

Scope:  Whilst  the  Ecodesign  and  the  Energy  labelling  Directives  are  limited  to  energy-related 
products11,  the  EU  Ecolabel  can  be  extended  to  all  types  of  products  and  EMAS  to  all  types  of 
organisations.  The  EU  Ecolabel  addresses  overall  environmental  performance  throughout  the  life 
cycle  (material  extraction,  production,  use  and  end  of  life)  and  weighs  different  impacts  against 
each other. Ecodesign and the Energy Label focus on energy consumption in the use phase but in 
particular  Ecodesign  can  include  additional  significant  environmental  impacts.12  For  EMAS,  the 
evaluation  and  establishment  of  concrete  performance  targets  is  individual  for  the  company; 
however, a set of core indicators is established for all EMAS registered organisations. 

Green  public  procurement  and  eco-innovation  activities  can  support  other  (SCP)  instruments 
including  Ecolabel  and  EMAS.  The  public  sector  are  important  buyers  -  public  procurement 
accounts for around 14 % of EU GDP across a wide range of sectors (e.g. energy, transport, waste 
management,  social  protection,  some  health  and  educational  services).  Green  public  procurement 
can  pull  green  products  and  services  (such  as  EU-Ecolabelled  products,  products  with  a  good 
energy performance or organisations that implement a transparent management scheme) on to the 

11 Energy-related products include products that use energy or have an indirect impact on energy consumption (e.g. windows or taps 
and showers). Other products — such as furniture, textiles, paper, beauty and healthcare products — do not fall under the scope of 
the  Ecodesing and the Energy Labelling Directive.  
12 A number of Ecodesign regulations set limits for pollutant emissions; two regulations address minimum durability. Some Energy 
Labels provide additional information related to noise emissions and water consumption in the use-phase.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
market.  Eco-innovation  activities  can  push  certain  product,  production  or  service  performance 
standards  by  developing  new,  cleaner  or  more  efficient  solutions  or  by  making  the  best  currently 
available technologies cheaper and more accessible. 

3.2 Objectives of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel Regulations 

The objective for the EU Ecolabel as stated in Recital 1 of the current Regulation is: 

‘…to  promote products with  a reduced environmental impact  during their entire  life cycle and to 
provide  consumers  with  accurate,  non-deceptive,  science-based  information  on  the environmental 
impacts of products’ 

The objective for EMAS as stated in Article 1 of the Regulation is: 

‘...to  promote  continuous  improvements  in  the  environmental  performance  of  organisations  by 
establishment  and  implementation  of  environmental  management  systems  by  organisations,  the 
systematic, objective and periodic evaluation of the performance of such systems, the provision of 
information on environmental performance, an open dialogue with the public and other interested 
parties and the active involvement of employees in organisations and appropriate training.’ 

Whilst each Regulation has its own objectives, for the purpose of the fitness check, these have been 
combined to define a set of general, specific and operational objectives: 

The general objective, which refers to the overall policy goal and is common for both schemes, is: 

to contribute to the reduction of the environmental impact of consumption and production. 

The specific objectives refer to what the Regulations were meant to achieve, and these differ: 

for  EMAS:  to  promote  continuous  improvements  in  the  environmental  performance  of 
organisations. 

for the EU Ecolabel: to promote products with reduced environmental impacts. 

The specific objectives are simplified versions of the objectives set out in the Regulations and in the 
associated impact assessments. 

The operational objectives are the same for both schemes, although they are achieved in different 
ways. 

Operational  objective  1:  Ensuring  environmental  performance  through  EMAS  and  the  EU 
Ecolabel. 

For  EMAS,  environmental  benefits  are  achieved  by  the  individual  organisations.  In  order  to  be 
EMAS-registered, each organisation must commit to improving and reporting on its environmental 
performance. The EMAS Regulation (Annex IV) provides a set of six core indicators that must be 
considered:  energy efficiency; material efficiency; water; waste; biodiversity; emissions to air. 

These  core  indicators  can  be  seen  as  environmental  priorities,  for  instance  regarding  the  link 
between  CO2  reduction/resource  depletion  and  cost  savings  (energy/material  efficiency).  The 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EMAS  Regulation  also  requires  the  organisation  to  report  on  its  compliance  with  other  relevant 
pieces of environmental legislation. 

For the EU Ecolabel, the environmental benefits are achieved by a product when it complies with 
product specific EU Ecolabel criteria requirements. These are pass/fail criteria intended (according 
to  Annex  1  to  the  Regulation)  to  reflect  the  best  10-20 %  of  products  on  the  market  in  terms  of 
environmental performance, taking into account the whole life cycle of the product. 

Operational objective 2: ensuring uptake of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel 

Uptake  multiplies  the  environmental  effects  achieved  by  EMAS-registered  organisations  or  by 
products that carry the EU Ecolabel. For EMAS, uptake is the number of registered organisations. If 
each organisation achieves the desired benefits, the two operational objectives should say something 
about the contribution to sustainable consumption and production. 

For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  uptake  is  the  number  of  EU  Ecolabel  licences  awarded  and  the  number  of 
products carrying the EU Ecolabel. The number of licences and products should demonstrate how 
attractive the EU Ecolabel is to industry. Indirectly, this should also say something about the uptake 
among consumers (there is no access to market share data as these are not collected as part of the 
monitoring obligations of the scheme (see limits to data – section 6.2). As a supplement to data on 
uptake by producers, consumer awareness of the EU Ecolabel can also tell something about the role 
of the EU Ecolabel on the market. 

Both  schemes  should  give  a  trustworthy  reference  point  for  environmental  performance  or 
compliance  checked  by  a  third  party  to  public  authorities,  consumers  or  buyers  in  business-to-
business  transactions.  This  is  reflected  in  the  intervention  logic  as  an  intermediate  output,  but 
should be considered a separate although not quantifiable objective related to the trustworthiness of 
the schemes.  

For  EMAS,  the  fact  that  environmental  compliance  is  integrated  into  the  system  together  with 
independent  third  party  verification  is  intended  to  enable  better  integration  into  environmental 
policies.  It  should  also  allow  e.g.  for  the  exploitation  of  regulatory  relief  and  synergies  in 
implementation  of  environmental  legislation  in  Member  States  (e.g.  environmental  inspections)13. 
This only happens if there is trust in the scheme as a guarantee for environmental performance and 
compliance. 

For  the  EU  Ecolabel  the  development  and  implementation  of  third-party  verified  criteria 
requirements  should  help  to  reduce  green  washing  and  unsubstantiated  environmental  claims14. 
Credibility  and  trustworthiness  are  about  both  performances  of  criteria  requirements  in  terms  of 
environment and functionality15 and also the business model of the scheme. The final effect of the 

13 Regulatory relief is understood as an ease in regulatory or administrative burden (such as frequency of environmental 
inspection, fast track procedures, lower fee or taxes etc.) resulting from compliance with EMAS. In order to effectuate a 
regulatory relief it is important that national authorities have a guarantee that this is not misused. Therefore it is 
considered important that national authorities have access to and can control information on environmental 
performance and that there is general transparency of such information before relief is granted. 
14 Green washing can happen when an unsubstantiated and unverifiable environmental claim is made and used to 
promote e.g. a product or an organisation. By offering generally agreed criteria, transparency and a third-party 
verification the EU Ecolabel and EMAS offer both scientific criteria for comparison and a credible label/certification 
for companies that are willing to go beyond mandatory requirements. 
15 Aside from environmental performance, EU Ecolabel products also need to perform their intended function (e.g. as a 
detergent) otherwise consumers will lose faith in EU-Ecolabelled products. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
EU Ecolabel is achieved when the scheme is able to shift choice (professional or private) towards 
more environmentally friendly consumption. This only happens if consumers trust the scheme. 

For voluntary tools such as EMAS and the EU Ecolabel there is an operational trade-off between 
the  two  operational  objectives  mentioned  here  as  in  general,  increased  costs  of  compliance  (e.g. 
through  reporting  obligations)  can  be  expected  to  reduce  (voluntary)  involvement  in  the  two 
schemes.  This  happens  because  costs  of  compliance  (a  barrier  to  uptake)  can  be  expected  to 
increase  with  environmental  performance  requirements  (e.g.  top  10-20 %  of  environmental 
performance  on  the  market,  avoiding  hazardous  substances,  reporting  on  key  indicators)  and 
increased  trustworthiness  and  credibility.  On  the  other  hand  producers  and  organisations  rely 
exactly on that credibility. 

EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  should  also  support  the  good  functioning  of  the  single  market  by 
providing  clarity  and  common  reference  on  the  environmental  features  and  characteristics  of 
products  and  organisations.  This  is  provided  e.g.  through the  agreed  EU  Ecolabel criteria  and the 
EMAS sectoral reference documents that are common, valid and provide guidance on the whole EU 
market. This should mean that manufactures and organisations do not have to spend resources on 
developing  internal  programmes/systems  for  advancing  environmental  claims  or  need  to  join  a 
multitude  of  individual  schemes,  criteria  or  commitments  that  —  with  the  exception  of  ISO 
standards — would only cover limited parts of the single market. 

No specific performance targets were set for the Regulations. The impact assessment for the most 
recent revision of EMAS (EMAS III — 2011) expected increased participation of companies 
(theoretically achieving 23 000 registered sites after five years after the entry into force of the 
revised EMAS16 should all MS perform to the level of the best performing), reduced administrative 
burden and costs to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The revised Ecolabel was to be a 
"label of excellence" with criteria aiming for top 10 to 20% of the market in terms of environmental 
performance within the product group at the time of adoption. The process to obtain the label was 
to be revised and simplified.  

3.3 The intervention logic of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel17 

The  intervention  logic  presented  in  Figure  2  builds  on  the  objectives  explained  above.  The 
intermediate  outputs  reflects  that  the  main  actions  established  by  the  Regulations  should  result  in 
schemes  that  are  attractive  to  organisations  and  producers  while  provide  the  trustworthiness  and 
credibility needed to meet consumer concerns, and be used and integrated in wider environmental 
policies  e.g.  for  regulatory  relief  or  in  green  public  procurement.  External  factors  (such  as  the 
general  macroeconomic  development,  existence  of  competing  instruments,  market  trends  and 
technological development) also affect the outcome.  

The intervention logic set out the framework that enables organisations and producers to participate 
in the schemes and apply for the EU Ecolabel or for EMAS certification. 

For the EU Ecolabel, this is done by: 

16 This estimation is based on an extrapolation of the registrations in the three best performing Member States. 
17 Figure 2 gives a general overview of how the schemes work. See also Annex 3a (EMAS) and Annex 3d (EU 
Ecolabel). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  selecting product groups and providing a set of criteria that defines products as having the 
best  environmental  performance  —  corresponding  to  the  best  10-20 %  on  the  market  in 
terms of environmental performance (operational objective 1); 

  providing  the  institutional  setup  that  guarantees  impartial  third-party  verification  of 
compliance with these criteria and the registration of products. The compliance label is the 
EU Ecolabel i.e. the flower (intermediate output). 

For EMAS, this is done by: 

  providing  guidance  on  the  environmental  review  and  performance  of  organisations 

(operational objective 1); 

  providing  the  institutional  setup  to  guarantee  impartial  and  third-party  verification  of 

compliance with continuous improvements (intermediate output). 

Setting  up  this  framework  as  an  intermediate  output  enables  the  schemes  to  achieve  uptake  by 
producers,  who  will  then  have  to  comply  with  the  criteria  (operational  objective  2).  To  further 
support this, the Regulations also set out ways of making the schemes more attractive to possible 
participants  through  promotional  activities  or  by  ensuring  benefits  from  integration  into  wider 
environmental policies. 

For both schemes it is/was expected that the national authorities set up a competent body to check 
compliance  and  award  the  EU  Ecolabel  or  the  EMAS  certificate.  Organisations  and  producers 
should apply for registration through the competent body. The competent body should then request 
information  on  the  product’s  performance  or  the  proper  implementation  of  the  EMAS 
environmental  management  and  audit  system.  The  producer  and  organisation  should  gather  this 
information  and  submit  it  to  the  competent  body  to  prove  compliance.  For  EMAS  this  should  be 
done through reporting on activities and performances based on the organisation’s commitments to 
improve  environmental  performance  and  should  lead  to  the  organisation  becoming  EMAS 
registered. For the EU Ecolabel, information would need to be provided to prove that the product’s 
environmental  performance  is  compliant  with  the  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  for  the  relevant  product 
group.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2: Intervention for EU Ecolabel and EMAS 

Needs 

Reduce the 
environmental impact 
of consumption and 
production 

External factors 

Macroeconomic developments — Market trends 
Competing instruments (development and interactions) 
Technological development 

Impacts 

Reduced overall impact on the 
environment from consumption 
and production 

Results 

Uptake of EMAS and the EU 
Ecolabel 

Objectives 

Regulatory input 

Regulatory activities 

Intermediate 
output 

EMAS: Promote 
continuous 
improvements in the 
environmental 
performance of 
organisations 

EMAS: Regulatory platform establishing 
a voluntary scheme that stimulates the 
improvement of environmental 
performance. It includes independent 
verification, registration by authorities 
and transparent reporting. 

Under Commission Control 

EU Ecolabel: Promote 
products/services with 
reduced 
environmental 
impacts 

EU Ecolabel: Regulatory platform to 
facilitate the voluntary registration, 
verification, labelling and promotion of 
products/services with reduced 
environmental impact. 

EMAS: EU Commission and Member 
States 
 Guidance on environmental review 

and performance 
 Perform registration 
 Set conditions of verification 
 Promote and support the scheme 
 Ensure integration in environmental 

policy 

 Promotional activities 
 Coordination of activities 

EU Ecolabel: European Commission and 
Members States 
 Development of criteria 
 Perform verification and registration 
 Provide assistance to producers 
 Promotional activities 
 Coordination activities 

Credible, 
attractive and 
trustworthy 
schemes 

9 

Outputs 

Reduced impact 
resulting from the 
individual EMAS 
certified organisations 
and EU--Ecolabelled 
product 

Voluntary activities 

Organisations: 
  Perform and environmental 

review 

 

  Establish an environmental 
management system 
Improve and report on 
environmental performance 
(including compliance) 
  Apply for / obtain EMAS 

registration 

  Use EMAS to improve their image 

Producers/service providers 
  Eventual environmental 

improvement of 
products/services to comply with 
criteria 

  Compile information to prove 

compliance  

  Apply for label / obtain label 
  Promotional activities 

Consumers: 
 Buy EU-Ecolabelled products 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figures  3  and  4  illustrate  how  the  schemes  work  in  different  ways.  The  EU  Ecolabel  targets  the 
segment  of  the  market  that  produces  products  that  deliver  environmental  excellence.  Any 
organisation  can  apply  for  EMAS  if  it  is  willing  to  commit  to  environmental  improvements  and 
report on efforts and achievements. As this is more demanding than mandatory regulation and the 
more widely adopted, comparable ISO 14001 standard, the EMAS Regulation attracts organisations 
willing to go further than mainstream organisations, including those participating in the ISO 14001 
environmental management system. In this sense, EMAS-registered organisations can be considered 
frontrunners. 

Figure3: 

Steps in the EU Ecolabel model 

Development 
of criteria 

Adoption of 
criteria 

Verification and 
awarding the EU 
Ecolabel 

Uptake of the EU 
Ecolabel 

Purchase of EU 
Ecolabel product 

Main 
actors 

Commission 
and EU 
Ecolabelling 
Board and 
relevant 
stakeholders 

Commission 
and EU 
Ecolabelling 
Board 

Figure 4: Steps in the EMAS Model 

Competent 
bodies 

Producers/service 
providers 

Consumers 

Perform 
environmental 
review 

Set objectives 
and implement 
actions  

Assess and report 
on achievements, 
set new objective 
and actions 

Main actors 

  Organisation 

Organisation 

  Organisation 

Verification and 
registration 
+ award of the 
EMAS logo  

Verifier and 
competent body 

Uptake of 
EMAS 

Organisation 

Under  EMAS,  the  process  is  expected  to  be  cyclical.  Reporting  on  achievements,  setting  new 
objectives and actions and checking them has to be done by the organisations every third year. This 
should  allow  for  continuous  environmental  improvement  and  ensure  that  national  authorities  are 
regularly  updated  on  environmental  compliance.  Under  the  EU  Ecolabel  the  criteria  should  be 
regularly updated to ensure that they reflect environmental excellence. 

nder  EMAS,  the  environmental  benefit  should  be  achieved  when  organisations  improve  their 
performance.  Under  the  EU  Ecolabel,  the  environmental  benefit  should  be  achieved  when  the 
product  replaces  another  product  with  a  worse  environmental  profile.  In  other  words,  the  final 
environmental effect depends on consumer choice. 

EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  are  voluntary  schemes,  meaning  that  producers  and  organisations 
freely decide whether they want to apply to participate. When deciding whether to apply, they will 
consider  both  the  cost  (e.g.  the  fee  and  the  internal  cost  for  preparing  the  application  or  for 
implementing changes) and the benefits. Examples of expected benefits for applicants could be as 
follows: 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EMAS 

EU Ecolabel 

Resource and energy efficiency leading to cost reduction  

Increased  focus  on  environmental  performance  and 
efficiencies in the production processes  

Image improvement leading to increased attractiveness for 
clients and stakeholders 

Image improvement given by the label, proving excellent 
environmental  performance  of  products  and services  and 
enabling  consumers  to  make  informed  choices  on  the 
basis of environmental performance  

Better  compliance  with  environmental  legislation,  leading 
to  a  decrease  in  risk  of  sanctions  and  environmental 
incidents 

Compliance  with  one  set  of  requirements  per  product 
group  recognised  and  accepted  across  the  single  market 
and  providing  the  ability  to  substantiate  environmental 
claims via the required third-party verification. This could 
be  considered  especially  important  for  SMEs  since  they 
may not have the in-house capacity to sign up to different 
labels or develop their own.  

Recognition  by  public  authorities  leading  to  regulatory 
relief and administrative incentives 

Recognition  of  performance  by  green  public  and  private 
procurement 

Producers’ uptake of the EU Ecolabel (licences and products) and organisations’ uptake of EMAS 
(registration  of  organisations  and  sites)  should  be  monitored  at  Member  State  level  and  for 
individual product groups. There are no required measures related to monitoring the impact of the 
EU Ecolabel on sales and market share for the EU Ecolabel. 

Section 4 Evaluation questions 

The retrospective evaluation questions published in the mandate seek to assess implementation with 
regard  to:  relevance,  EU  added  value,  Effectiveness,  Efficiency  and  coherence.  The  evaluation 
questions  are  dealt  with  together  for  both  Regulations,  but  where  necessary,  relevant  conclusions 
are presented for the individual Regulations. The individual questions are presented and addressed 
in section 7. The general understanding of the five evaluation criteria applied for the Fitness check 
is as follows: 

Relevance:   

What is the relationship between the needs and the problems in society and 
the objectives of the intervention and the current policy agenda? 

EU added value: 

Has intervention at EU level on EMAS and the EU Ecolabel caused changes 
that would otherwise not have occurred? 

Effectiveness: 

How successful has  EU  action  been in  achieving or  progressing towards its 
objectives? 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency: 

What is the relationship between the resources used in an intervention and the 
changes it brought about? 

Coherence: 

How well do the EU Ecolabel and EMAS work together with other actions? 

Section 5 Method 

5.1. Purpose and scope of the Fitness Check 

The purpose of the fitness check is to assess if the EMAS and EU Ecolabel Regulations are fit for 
purpose,  in  particular  checking  that  the  regulations  do  not  apply  unnecessary  or  disproportionate 
regulatory  burden,  and  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of  the  experiences  in  implementing  the 
schemes by focusing on the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added 
value.  

In  addition,  both  the  EMAS  and  EU  Ecolabel  Regulations  require  that  a  report  shall  be  sent  to 
Council and Parliament on their implementation.  

This  fitness  check  focuses  exclusively  on  the  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulations  and  their 
performance.  It  does  not  cover  the  wider  SCP  tools  (see  figure  1,  section  3.1)  which  were  at 
different  stages  of  development.  For  example,  the  work  streams  on  the  product  and  organisation 
environmental  footprints  and  on  environmental  technology  verification  are  still  in  the  pilot  phase 
and data are not yet available from them. They will be evaluated in the context of the pilot phase. 
However the 2008 SCP Action Plan is important in providing the context and links to other tools 
and is addressed in the section on coherence (section 7.4).  

Equally, given the recent reviews of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives as well as the 
Public  Procurement  Directive  (which  has  an  impact  on  the  potential  for  using  Green  Public 
Procurement  as  a  way  to  stimulate  the  market  for  green  products)  these  directives  were  excluded 
from the direct scope, but are covered under coherence. This also means that any potential impact 
on EMAS and the EU Ecolabel resulting from changes in the way these Directives are implemented 
are unknown at the time of this fitness check.  

In terms of the time period covered, this fitness check is not limited to the impacts resulting from 
the  most  recent  revisions  in  2009  but  attempts  to  evaluate  the  overall  performance  of  both 
Regulations since their inception.18  

The differences between voluntary and mandatory tools, between products and organisations as well 
as  differences  in  scope  of  the  different  SCP  instruments  (see  section  3.1.)  and  the  limited  and 
scattered  access  to  data  means  that  it  has  not  been  possible  to  do  a  cumulative  cost  and  benefit 
analysis of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel together within this fitness check; nor for the instruments in 
the SCP action plan as a whole.  

18 However, issues on data availability and consistency do not allow for a full description of performance. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.2. Evaluation studies 

This fitness check draws on two supporting studies (one for EMAS19 and one for the EU Ecolabel20) 
carried  out  between  January  2014  and  December  2015.  Both  studies  had  access  to  general 
information  (collected  via  competent  bodies  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  EMAS  Helpdesks)  about 
uptake of the two schemes, products covered, etc. Due to the nature of this data, no study-specific 
modelling was conducted. 

Stakeholder consultation21 

Both  supporting  studies  used  the  results  of  stakeholder  consultations  conducted  through  online 
questionnaires  (distributed  during  the  summer  of  2014),  face-to-face  and  phone  interviews,  and 
stakeholder workshops. 

For the EU Ecolabel, 364 responses were received following a 12 week open public consultation. A 
sample  of  six  Member  States  was  investigated  more  closely.  The  countries  were  chosen  after 
categorising Member States by uptake (high, medium, low). Account was also paid to the need to 
address countries with strong national Ecolabels (e.g. Blue Angel in Germany) or regional ecolabels 
(the Nordic Ecolabel that Denmark shares with the other Nordic countries) and to balancing older 
Member  States  with  those  who  joined  after  2004.    Two  Member  States  were  selected  from  each 
group: Denmark and Italy with a relatively high uptake, Germany and the Czech Republic with a 
medium uptake and the United Kingdom and Poland with a low uptake. 

Telephone or face-to-face interviews were carried out in all six Member States. Further interviews 
were  also  conducted  with  key  stakeholders  and  a  stakeholder  workshop  was  held  to  discuss  key 
emerging  results  from  the  consultation  process.  Throughout  the  process,  the  EUEB  (European 
Union Ecolabelling Board) and competent bodies were consulted. 

For EMAS, a different approach was chosen, based on:  

  a survey targeting EMAS organisations;  
  a set of interviews addressing all stakeholders;  
  a specific survey addressing Member States.    

A focused survey of EMAS-registered organisations was considered the best use of resources rather 
than  an  open  consultation.  The  survey  received  a  high-level  of  participation,  with  representation 
proportionate  to  the  number  of  registrations  in  the  different  Member  States  and  sectors.  467 
responses to the online questionnaire were received from organisations.  

Additionally, EMAS stakeholders were contacted, including:  

  competent bodies;  
  environmental verifiers;  
  different  types  of  EMAS-registered  organisations  (public  and  private,  large  and  small, 

national and global, manufacturers and service providers);  

  Member State representatives.  

19 EMAS study available at https://publications.europa.eu/s/cXBw 
20 EU ECOLABEL study available at https://publications.europa.eu/s/cX72 and EU Ecolabel synthesis report available at 
https://publications.europa.eu/s/cX70 
21 See also Annex 2. More detailed results of consultation can be found in the two supporting studies.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Interviews  were  also  carried  out  with  non-EMAS-registered  organisations  and  organisations  that 
withdrew from EMAS. 

The  EMAS  study  looked  more  specifically  at  a  limited  selection  of  Member  States  representing 
different levels of uptake. For this purpose, Member States were divided into three categories and 
evaluators were asked to get feedback from all three groups, but to give priority to Member States 
where most experience and information could be found. A separate and focused questionnaire was 
sent to Member States with 20 responses and six partial responses were received. 

A  workshop  was  held  to  discuss  key  results  from  the  questionnaire  and  the  desk  research. 
Throughout the process, the competent bodies were consulted. 

Desk research 

An extensive review of specialist literature/desk research was a central part of the methodology for 
both studies. 

For the EU Ecolabel, evaluators looked closer at four product groups. The selection was intended to 
cover different types of products, with the following selected for closer investigation:  

  one article: tissue paper;  
  one mixture: paints and varnishes;  
  one service: tourist accommodation;  
  an electrical product: televisions. 

For  environmental  management  schemes  particular  attention  was  paid  to  the  most  popular 
alternative system to EMAS - the ISO 14001 global environmental management system. The aims 
were to cover potential synergies and conflicts and look at the EU added value. 

5.3 Limitations to the Fitness Check 

Whilst the work presented here attempts to follow the latest Commission guidelines on evaluation22 
it should be noted that the Fitness Check started before they were adopted. In practice this means 
that substantial (external) work had already been commissioned by the time of their adoption and it 
was not possible to adapt to all the methodological and data needs now enshrined in the Guidelines. 
This  provides  limitations  to  the  analysis  that  can  be  presented,  particularly  given  the  data  issues 
explained below. 

The assessment of the consultation done in the supporting studies built on the responses received, 
which  were  largely  from  existing  stakeholders  and  active  participants  in  the  schemes.  However, 
barriers and drivers will largely be the same for those involved and for those who have considered 
applying but chosen not to, although the final weighting of the consequences (costs and benefits) 
has been different. 

The  studies  tried  to  gather  additional  information  from  Member  States  concerning  costs  and 
revenues linked to the implementation of the schemes. However, such information remains limited, 
incomplete  and  with  variations  in  coverage  and  quality.  Costs  for  implementing  one  Regulation 
cannot easily be separated from other policy initiatives and the income from registration fees is, to 

22  
be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm. 

New guidelines covering all aspects of Better Regulation including evaluation were adopted in 2015. They can 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
varying degrees, reinvested in implementation or goes directly to the state budget to balance costs. 
For  this  reason,  information  should  be  treated  with  caution  as  only  providing  broad  and  partial 
information. 

There are similar problems relating to benefits data, meaning that at this point in time they cannot 
be  quantified  in  monetary  terms  or  in  absolute  environmental  improvements  in  a  credible  and 
comprehensive  manner.  Benefits  can  be  associated  with  a  range  of  stakeholders  and  issues 
including  increased  sales,  improved  production  processes,  resource  savings,  better  supply  chain 
management, access to public procurement, regulatory relief, higher awareness among employees, 
better  image,  easier  access  to  markets  through  harmonised  procedures  or  fewer  accidents  or 
infractions resulting from better environmental management.  

Because of this lack of data an overview of net benefit or cost cannot be provided. In addition, costs 
and benefits will depend on implementation in individual Member States, on the different sectors 
and product groups involved and the individual structure of the organisation or production process. 
For  the  same  reason  it  is  not  possible  to  calculate  a  cumulative  impact.  The  fact  that  both 
Regulations  are  voluntary  means  that  no  systematic  data  on  the  environmental  profile  or  on  the 
market as such is available or reported for either products or organisations which do not follow the 
two schemes.  Environmental data is available for products or organisations who participate in the 
schemes;  it  is  collected  and  verified  by  third  parties  but  no  market  share  data  is  collected  and 
reported  by  the  schemes.  Considering  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  schemes  adding  requirements 
could add to the administrative burden or oblige sharing of information that is preferably kept in-
house  and  thus  in  some  instances  act  as  a  deterrent  to  joining  the  schemes.    However,  for  the 
purpose of establishing a full picture of the environmental performance on the market this a limited 
and biased sample. Furthermore this information it only available when they participate and not at 
the time when the first set of EU Ecolabel criteria is defined. This can cause a significant limitation. 

It has not been possible to gather comparative information on implementation costs for competing 
schemes.  Given  that  such  schemes  operate  under  different  national,  regional  (such  as  the  Nordic 
countries)  or  global  conditions,  any  direct  comparison  would  in  any  case  be  difficult.  Similarly, 
there are limitations relating to the limited availability of consistent pan-European data on the actual 
environmental performance of products and organisations. As a result, comparison with an average 
product or organisation — or general baseline — is not possible.   

EU Ecolabel-specific limitations 

Availability of data on environmental performance has been a limiting factor. A full set of complex 
data  would  have  had  to  be  generated  at  product  level  for  all  products  within  a  product  group  in 
order to compare and benchmark environmental performance of the EU Ecolabel products against 
average products on the market. Given the complexity of products and services, the wide range of 
components each one may contain and the voluntary nature of the scheme, the need for enormous 
amounts of data and the limited availability of such data would require disproportionate resources in 
order to perform a fitness check at the same level of quantification and detail that could be expected 
e.g. for Energy Labelling.  

Where possible, the evaluation study addressed the lack of data on environmental performance by 
performing  a  life  cycle  assessment  or  comparing  the  performance  of  products  to  requirements  in 
mandatory  legislation.  In  general  however,  the  suitability  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  has  been 
assessed by looking at the procedures to set criteria for the EU-Ecolabelled products. 

An  additional  limitation  is  that  the  data  reporting  method  was  changed  in  2010.  Under  the  new 
method,  producers  were  asked  to  report  directly  through  a  common  database  rather  than  through 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
competent bodies. This method of counting the number of licences and products and reporting was 
only harmonised in 2014. This means that pre-2014 data is not easily compared and that aggregate 
data  cannot  be  considered  specific  but  rather  as  indicating  broad  trends.  This  therefore  limits  the 
statistics available for this fitness check. 

EMAS-specific limitations 

For EMAS, a recent update (September 2015) of the ISO 14001 global environmental management 
system has adopted some of the elements of EMAS, although distinct features still remain. Due to 
its recent adoption the potential impact of the ISO revision on EMAS cannot be estimated. Annex 
3b  illustrates  the  main  differences  before  and  after  the  revision.  One  of  the  (remaining)  distinct 
features that distinguishes EMAS from ISO is that EMAS includes mandatory transparent reporting, 
ensuring that the required information is available for EMAS registered organisations. Since ISO-
registered companies are not requested to report publicly on their achievements, it was not possible 
to  directly  compare  the  environmental  performance  of  EMAS  and  ISO-certified  organisations, 
although this fitness check draws on what information could be found in other studies. Moreover, it 
is  not  possible  to  compare  the  performance  of  EMAS-registered  organisations  with  that  of  an 
average organisation due to the lack of relevant data available for the latter. However, because each 
EMAS  registered  organisation  defines  its  individual  targets  based  on  its  own  processes  and 
procedures and building on its own data sets, even with access to data from other organisation direct 
comparison would be difficult. 

The EMAS questionnaire was directed towards EMAS organisations. This targeted approach gives 
more detailed results on experiences, but at the same time, it established a biased sample. This is a 
limitation in the use of the questionnaire that was recognised by the study and compensation was 
sought through desk research and interviews with non-EMAS stakeholders. 

The distribution of the sample across Member States has a bias towards Member States with more 
mature  policies  in  support  of  EMAS.  While  it  is  natural  that  there  will  be  more  responses  from 
Member  States  with  large  numbers  of  registrations,  this  bias  needs  to  be  taken  into  account. 
However, the study also splits the results into three categories: Member States with high, medium, 
or low level of registrations.   

Section 6 State of play of the implementation (Results) 

6.1. Reporting on monitoring activities 

The statistical results reflect the monitoring activities put in place as part of the implementation of 
the most recent Regulations. 

6.1.1 EU Ecolabel   

Given  the  uncertainty  of  the  data,  the  statistics  should  be  treated  with  caution.  The  number  of 
licences and products under the EU Ecolabel has been generally increasing in the period since the 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
revision in 2010.23 This also reflects the increased number of product groups for which criteria have 
been  developed.  In  2010,  criteria  were  in  place  for  26  product  groups,  in  2014  for  38  product 
groups, and in 2015 for 33 product groups (see Annex 4). 

Figure 6: EU Ecolabel licences 

Figure 7: EU-Ecolabelled products 

Number of licenses 

Number of products 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Uptake  varies  greatly  among  product  groups.  Generally  speaking,  products  related  to  health  and 
hygiene,  such  as  soaps  and  shampoos,  all-purpose  cleaners  and  dishwashing  detergents,  show 
higher  uptake,  together  with  paper  products  and  paints.  The  number  of  licences  for  tourist 
accommodation  and  campsite  services  is  among  the  highest  (650  and  123),  but  this  should  be 
considered  in  light  of  the  overall  very  high  number  of  existing  tourist  accommodations.24  Seven 
product groups have no uptake and a number of product groups have very little uptake. 

The  statistics  also  show  significant  differences  in  uptake  across  Member  States.  Five  countries 
(Austria,  France,  Italy,  Germany  and  Spain)  have  more  than  100  licensees  and  count  for 
approximately 75 % of all licences. One observation is that Member States with strong national or 
regional  labels  (such  as  the  Blue  Angel  or  the  Nordic  Swan)  are  well  represented  among  the 
countries  with  higher  uptake  considering  also  size  of  the  Member  State.  Italy’s  share  of  EU 
Ecolabel  products  is  caused  by  a  dominant  position  in  the ‘hard  coverings’  product  group,  where 
Italy  has  14  licences  covering  14 352  products.  Although  some  Member  States  dominate  some 
product  groups,  almost  a  third  of  the  product  groups  have  uptake  in  ten  or  more  Member  States. 
Tourist  accommodation,  all-purpose  cleaners,  tissue  paper,  indoor  paints  and  varnishes  have  the 
most widespread uptake among Member States. 

23 Numbers for 2015 are not for the full year. 
24 Tourist accommodation is different from other product groups because typically each tourist accommodation will receive a 
licence, whereas when a licence is issued for a detergent, all the individual products of that type can be sold with the label. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 2: Distribution of licences across product groups and Member States 

18 

ATBEBGHRCYCZDKEEFIFRDEGRHUISIEITLVLTLUMTNLNOPOPTRPSKSIES2SEUKTotal per PGSoaps, shampoos, and hair conditioners2215156115110244876Rinse-off cosmetics213Absorbent hygiene products11All-purpose cleaners and cleaners for sanitary facilities13912713144211201231255153221264Detergents for dishwashers11476112427Industrial and institutional automatic dishwasher detergents3138131121Hand dishwashing detergents7713251421221722318124Laundry detergents13310711412141241Industrial and Institutional laundry detergents2114Textiles 41252123111234Footwear1153111Indoor paints and varnishes616113815211232271511812161Outdoor paints and varnishes121959137Indoor and Outdoor paints and varnishes71310526Imaging EquipmentPersonal computersPortable computersTelevisions11327Wooden floor coverings11Hard coverings1141117Textile floor coveringsWooden furniture1113Soil improvers2271113Growing media5123112Light sourcesHeat pumps134Water-based heaters Lubricants311110369211680Bed mattresses 112Sanitary Tapware11Flushing Toilets and urinalsConverted paper 11Newsprint paper12115Printed paper37261322231411487Copy and Graphic paper6582012221147160Tissue Paper1122111340361322211467135Campsite services1146992514123Tourist accomodation services88114322863121119315243253012650Total pr CB181353071153317555239491702359451183731192051519236812031 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Distribution of products across product groups and Member States 

19 

ATBEBGHRCYCZDKEEFIFRDEGRHUISIEITLVLTLUMTNLNOPOPTRPSKSIES2SEUKTotal pr PGSoaps, shampoos, and hair conditioners41316144628231025452030831059Rinse-off cosmetics527Absorbent hygiene products33All-purpose cleaners and cleaners for sanitary facilities9320692984978195161834623125726865366882772Detergents for dishwashers5124574756613173Industrial and institutional automatic dishwasher detergents165334961012122Hand dishwashing detergents15671632184611704215448213615Laundry detergents275481172331283842023337Industrial and Institutional laundry detergents9141437Textiles 1615846381247521139482501Footwear4811263546256Indoor paints and varnishes49723373221722662747451794228826612227486017Outdoor paints and varnishes1172312198971664Indoor and Outdoor paints and varnishes9132531347581239Imaging Equipment0Personal computers0Portable computers0Televisions887405882661781Wooden floor coverings11Hard coverings3514352401414441Textile floor coverings0Wooden furniture381342Soil improvers544411367Growing media421516165Light sources0Heat pumps4676473Water-based heaters 0Lubricants417467139413344313Bed mattresses 245478Sanitary Tapware88Flushing Toilets and urinals0Converted paper 586586Newsprint paper2213632Printed paper21581041031210426254331Copy and Graphic paper8702459288571010056453951428583921Tissue Paper8477965378101052059855872353122553111032585959Campsite services1156992614125Tourist accomodation services881143228631211196132243253018686Total pr CB675157918829971122607618680040891036195938936111001071231612321294129892293223744711 
 
 
 
 
 
6.1.2 EMAS 

From 2005 to 2012, the number of EMAS-registered organisations and sites25 showed a slow, but 
steady increase (see Figure 8 below). The number of EMAS-registered organisations increased by 
nearly 50 %, from 3 084 in 2005 to 4 473 in 2012, but still remains a small proportion of the total 
number  of  organisations/companies  in  the  EU.  Between  2012  and  2014,  both  the  number  of 
organisations  and  the  number  of  sites  decreased,  reaching  4 049  organisations  and  7 556  sites  in 
mid-2014. The decrease has mainly been caused by a drop in Italy and Spain (see figure 10 below 
showing Member State evolutions) coinciding with the economic crisis.26 

In  2010,  EMAS  III  introduced  the  concept  of  ‘EU  corporate  registration’  that  enables  a  single 
organisation  to  register  multiple  sites  in  different  countries  under  one  registration  number.  As  a 
result,  the  number  of  sites  has  been  growing  faster  than  the  number  of  organisations.  Some 
organisations  have  also  decided  to  regroup  their  registered  sites  under  one  registration  number 
(negatively  impacting  the  organisation  registration  figures).  In  2015,  the  helpdesk  identified  736 
corporate registrations, including a total of 4 213 sites. 

Figure 8 — Number of EMAS-registered organisations and sites 

7702 

7828 

8177 

7436 

7556 

6931 

4296 

4435 

4468 

4473 

4120 

4049 

5962 

3957 

5310 

3537 

4662 

3225 

4116 

3084 

EMAS III Regulation in force 

Organisations

Sites

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

There  are  significant  differences  in  the  number  of  organisations  per  Member  State:  the  vast 
majority  of  EMAS  registrations  (82 %)  are  in  four  countries  (Germany,  Spain,  Italy  and  Austria) 
while Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia each had only one or no registrations. Many of the 
same Member States (Italy, Germany, Spain and Austria) are at the forefront of both EMAS and the 
EU Ecolabel implementation, with the noticeable exception of France, which is a leader for the EU 
Ecolabel only. 

25 To focus on the most recent trends in EMAS registrations, the project team examined the period from the last EMAS evaluation 
study (Iraldo et al. 2006) in 2005 until the middle of 2014. The analysis of both organisation and site numbers is essential for 
evaluating EMAS registration trends during this time period, as the EMAS III Regulation introduced the concept of ‘EU corporate 
registration’. As a result, one organisation can now register multiple sites in different countries under one registration, possibly 
impacting overall registration figures. 
26 In Italy some more specific factors have been identified such as administrative restructuring with the merging of smaller 
municipalities into one (affecting the number of registered public administrations) and a lack of benefit for small and micro 
organisations since most of benefits and incentives reward mostly medium-sized and large organisations. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 9: Number of EMAS-registered organisations and sites per Member State (April 2014) 

Sites

Organisations

1229 

1289 

1072 

1017 

1605 

1882 

779 

786 

Germany
Spain
Italy
Austria
Portugal
Denmark
Cyprus
United Kingdom
Poland
Belgium
Greece
Czech Republic
Hungary
Sweden
France
Norway
Lithuania
Estonia
Romania
Netherlands
Ireland
Finland
Bulgaria
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Malta
Luxembourg
Latvia

118 

249 

394 

123 

154 

76 

58 
54 
51 
51 
62 
48 
45 
42 
39 
58 
25 
26 
23 
19 
20 
19 
19 
18 
21 
9 
6 
7 
5 
5 
5 
4 
4 
23 
4 
3 
3 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
0 
0 

45 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Among  the  leading  countries,  the  numbers  of  registrations  in  Germany  have  actually  declined 
gradually  since  2005,  whereas  for  all  other  countries  registrations  remained  steady  or  increased 
until 2012. In contrast, Spain and Italy experienced a steady growth year by year, with Italy starting 
at roughly the same level as Austria in 2005 and increasing to over 1 000 organisations by 2010. 
After increasing up until 2012, both Spain and Italy experienced a significant drop in registrations 
in 2013. This downward trend stopped in 2014 for Spain and Germany. 

Figure 10: Changes in EMAS registrations over time for Member States 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Differences in uptake can also be observed among the different industrial and service sectors. This 
report.
specific  point  will  be  analysed 

in  more  detail  under  point  7.2.5  of 

this 

6.2 Adequacy of existing data monitoring  

The environmental impact of EMAS is directly connected to the number of registrations, while the 
effects  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  are  achieved  if  and  when  a  product  with  the  EU  Ecolabel  replaces  a 
product with a worse environmental performance. However, even with market share data it would 
be  impossible  to  estimate  the  environmental  profile  of  the  product  that  is  replaced  as  data  is  not 
available for all  products  on the market.  The EU Ecolabel is  a voluntary  tool, meaning that there 
may  be  products  on  the  market  with  a  similar  or  even  better  environmental  profile  than  the  EU 
Ecolabel  but  where  the  producer  decides  not  to  obtain  the  EU  Ecolabel.  Rather  than  providing  a 
better understanding and quantification of the environmental impacts, an analysis of market share 
data would provide a better understanding of uptake, consumer recognition and recognition between 
different product groups. 

For some product groups with a low uptake by producers, market penetration must be assumed to 
be very low. For product groups for which no products have the EU Ecolabel, the figure is zero. For 
other  product groups, such as  cleaning  products, paints and paper products, additional knowledge 
on market share could help us to better understand the role of the EU Ecolabel as a possible driver 
within  certain  product  groups.  It  is  possible  that  the  EU  Ecolabel  has  become  more  firmly 
established  and  recognised  by  consumers  within  certain  product  groups  and  for  that  reason 
producers have been driven to develop a product that fulfils the criteria. The lack of market share 
data  in  the  monitoring  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  scheme  has  prevented  further  analysis  of  the  EU 
Ecolabel’s possible impact and differences in impact for specific product groups. Such data may be 
gathered  directly  or  as  estimations  of  market  share  provided  by  industry  associations  but  should 
take  into  account  the  associated  cost  and  potential  burdens  or  issues  of  transparency  that  may 
negatively affect uptake by producers. 

For  EMAS  the  situation  is  slightly  different.  As  described  in  section  7.2.1,  the  environmental 
savings  can  be  measured  for  organisations  through  the  mandatory  reporting  on  core  indicators  as 
part  of  their  environmental  statements.  There  is  also  a  more  direct  link  between  the  number  of 
registrations and the environmental savings. However, as described in section 7.5.1, a difference has 
been  identified  between  the  environmental  savings  perceived  and  reported  in  the  context  of  the 
stakeholder  survey  and  the  savings  identified  through  the  analysis  of  a  sample  of  environmental 
statements.  This  suggests  that  the  core  indicators  may  not  be  equally  valuable  across  all  sectors. 
Indeed,  although  there  can  be  similarities  (e.g.  energy  consumption  and  water  consumption) 
between  industrial  production  sites  and  service  providers,  there  can  also  be  differences  (e.g. 
material  consumption  or  waste  generation)  where  the  results  of  the  same  indicators  have  to  be 
interpreted differently. 

For both Regulations it should be remembered that asking those who participate in the schemes for 
more  information  would  increase  the  schemes’  (at  least  indirect)  compliance  cost  and  thus  make 
voluntary participation less attractive. However, it does not solve the general problem that there are 
no data available for the products and organisations that do not participate since there is currently 
no obligation to report this. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  absence  of  market  share  data  for  EU-Ecolabelled  products  prevents  a  better 
understanding  of  consumer  uptake  and  recognition  and  a  better  understanding  of  possible 
different  dynamics  within  and  between  product  groups.  For  EMAS  the  core  indicators 
(especially  for  waste  and  material  management)  may  not  be  the  most  appropriate  for  all 
organisations. 

Section 7 Answers to the evaluation questions 

7.1 Relevance 

This  section  looks  at  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  the  problems  of  society  and  the 
objectives of the intervention. It has been guided by the following evaluation questions: 

Q1: Do the objectives of the Regulations still match societal needs? 

Q2: Are the Regulations consistent with current Commission policies in this field? 

Q3:  How  relevant  are  the  Regulations  for  driving  improvement  in  the  environmental 
performance  of  products  and  organisations  in  the  context  of  the  sustainable  consumption 
and production toolbox? 

7.1.1. Relevance in terms of societal needs 

According  to  the  ‘European  Environment  —  State  and  Outlook  2015  (SOER2015)’27  synthesis 
report,  current  consumption  and  production  patterns  have  significant  environmental  impacts. 
Europe continues to face considerable challenges and further action is needed to achieve the current 
environmental  policy  objectives.  A  summary  of  the  environmental  outlook  for  the  next  20  years 
from SOER2015 (see table 1) shows that out of 20 indicators, 12 shows that we are only partly on 
track and 7 show that we are largely not on track to achieve key policy targets.   

The  report  notes  that  while  policies  and  instruments  are  having  a  positive  effect  on  reducing  the 
environmental  impacts  of  consumption  and  production,  the  economic  crisis  and  the  subsequent 
recession have also contributed to the overall reduction of some pressures. 

Although  the  environmental  footprint  of  household  consumption  remains  unsustainable  and 
absolute  material  and  water  use  has  increased,  the  report  highlights  some  results  in  decoupling 
environmental  pressures  from  expenditures  that  have  been  achieved  through  improved  eco-
efficiency  in  the  production  of  goods  and  services  rather  than  by  changing  consumption  patterns. 
While such effects from more efficient products may deliver real environmental benefits, chances 

27 SOER2015. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
are  that  these  will  be  offset  by  increased  consumption  resulting  from  behavioural  change  or 
systemic responses known as the ‘rebound effect’28 

Table 4: Summary of environmental trends 

The SOER makes it clear that living well within the earth’s ecological limit remains an issue 
to  be  addressed  and  will  require  a  fundamental  transition  in  the  systems  of  production  and 
consumption, which are at the root of environmental and climate pressures. As described in 
section 3.1. the SCP Action plan in general and the EU Ecolabel and EMAs specifically are 
intended to address these issues. Moreover, an increasing part of the environmental impact of 
European  consumption  occurs  outside  Europe,  whereas  most  EU  policies  and  instruments 
target lifecycle impacts of products that occur within Europe. 

The objectives of the EMAS and EU Ecolabel remain relevant to the task of matching societal 
needs because: 

 

there  is  a  need  to  mitigate  environmental  impacts  and  to  ensure  protection  of  the 
environment; 

  a transformation of consumption and production patterns is needed to stay within the 

earth’s ecological limits; 

28 See e.g. Hertwich, Edgar G (2005): Consumption and the Rebound Effect. 

there continues to be a need for appropriate policy responses. 

 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
7.1.2. Relevance in relation to recent policy objectives 

The second priority objective of the seventh environmental action programme (7EAP) is to 
turn  the  EU  into  a  resource  efficient,  green  and  competitive  low  carbon  economy.  The 
programme calls for a framework that gives appropriate signals to producers and consumers 
to  promote  resource  efficiency  and  the  circular  economy  and  for  measures  to  be  taken  to 
improve the environmental performance of goods and services. The programme also calls for 
a  more  coherent  and  effective  sustainable  consumption  and  production  policy  framework, 
with a special focus on resource efficiency. 

The  EU2020  strategy  on  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  identifies  a  priority  for  a  more 
resource  efficient,  greener  and  more  competitive  economy  and  the  Resource  efficiency 
roadmap  builds  on  sustainable  consumption  and  production  as  a  way  to  stimulate 
environmental  improvements  and  to  support  companies  and  organisations  to  grow  while 
taking into consideration and exploring options to improve their environmental performance. 

The  Commission's  Communication  on  the  circular  economy  explores  the  idea  of  reducing 
environmental impact of consumption and production by focusing on products with reduced 
environmental impact and more efficient (re)use and recycling of resources in the production 
and  consumption  phase.  By  focusing  on  keeping  resources  in  the  economy,  the 
communication emphasises the link between the different life cycle stages and how resources 
can be kept or reintroduced into the circle through clever product design that allows for re-
manufacturing,  disassembly,  reuse  of  components  and  recycled  materials,  minimal  use  of 
chemicals of concern that may prevent recycling, etc. 

the  EU  Ecolabel  and  EMAS  as  environmental  management, 
The  objectives  of 
communication  and  transparency  tools  remain  in  line  with  the  policy  objectives  outlined 
above. EMAS requires mandatory reporting on specific core indicators identified as relevant 
in the European context (e.g. material and energy efficiency or waste management) and offers 
an  opportunity  for  integration  with  other  environmental  policies.  The  strategic  potential  to 
use  EMAS  in  pursuit  of  specific  EU  environmental  objectives  (e.g.  material  and  energy 
efficiency in the circular economy) and for policy integration (e.g. by open and transparent 
reporting and access to information) cannot be achieved through national or global schemes. 
The  2015  update  of  the  ISO  14001  global  environmental  management  system  will 
incorporate some of the distinct features of EMAS. However, other distinct features continue 
to  exist  for  EMAS  (see  Annex  3b).  These  include:  a  clear  focus  on  the  continuous 
improvement  of  environmental  performances  (ISO  focuses  on  improving  the  management 
system);  mandatory  transparent  reporting,  including  reporting  on  key  indicators;  an 
obligation on employee involvement; an obligation to demonstrate legal compliance. 

EU Ecolabel criteria are already reflecting circular economy concepts by setting requirements 
for  e.g.  recycled  content,  recyclability,  reparability  and  longer  life  of  products.  The  EU 
Ecolabel has already been used in support of the circular economy with such requirements for 
most product groups including textile products, converted paper products, wooden furniture, 
bed  mattresses,  imaging  equipment,  heat  pumps,  PCs  and  notebook  computers.  However, 
experience  has  also  shown  that  some  requirements  such  as  re-manufacturing  (e.g.  of 
furniture) have not been possible to integrate.  

The  strict  rules  on  the  use  of  hazardous  substances  laid  down  in  Article  6(6)  of  the  EU 
Ecolabel Regulation do not always support  the use of some chemicals that could be relevant 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
in the context of the circular economy, e.g. when chemicals which could be used to prolong 
durability  or  when  their  presence  (if  possible  to  determine)  affects  the  ability  to  recycle. 
Similarly,  the  chemical  content  of  secondary  materials  may  not  be  possible  to  determine 
accurately  to  ensure  adequate  information  and  verification.  This  issue  is  recognised  by  the 
circular economy action plan and the work the Commission is doing with regard to the future 
EU strategy for a non-toxic environment. 

The objectives of the EU Ecolabel and EMAS remain relevant because: 

 

they  are  in  line  with  recent  strategic  policy  objectives  including  the  EU2020 
strategy, the resource efficiency roadmap, the 7EAP and the communication on the 
circular economy. 

However: 

  while  at  a  practical  level,  some  synergies  are  already  implemented,  there  are  also 
issues (such as the interface between products and chemicals in a circular economy ) 
that  are  still  to  be  addressed  in  the  context  of  the  recent  communication  on  the 
circular economy. 

  while  both  schemes  address  a  relevant  need  (reduce  the  environmental  impact  of 
consumption  and  production);  the  ability  to  adequately  address  that  need  depends 
on the schemes' effectiveness both in their ability to identify enhanced environmental 
performance and to achieve uptake (see  effectiveness 7.2).  

7.1.3. Relevance to the sustainable consumption and production policy toolbox 

According  to  the  2014  environmental  indicator  report  on  environmental  impacts  of 
production  and  consumption  systems  in  Europe,29  the  scope  of  the  current  EU  policy 
framework  that  regulates  the  life  cycle  impacts  of  the  production-consumption  system  is 
limited to mostly addressing the direct impacts that occur within Europe. Policies that address 
the  global  environmental  impacts  of  products  and  their  consumption  are  still  at  their  very 
early stages, except for those on the energy efficiency of energy related products, for which 
both the Ecodesign and the Energy label Directives are in place. 

The  review  of  the  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  Directives  (published  July  201530) 
concluded that the ecodesign and energy labelling measures in place are effective in that they 
bring tangible and substantial energy and cost savings. They do so by both setting minimum 
efficiency requirements for access to the European Market for energy-related products and by 
offering  the  best  performers  the  opportunity  to  showcase  that  through  the  use  of  the 
mandatory  Energy  Label.  The  review  found  that  although  some  measures  have  addressed 
environmental impacts other than energy in the use phase, potential for further reduction of 
such  impacts  exists,  for  example  on  aspects  of  durability,  reparability,  reusability, 

29 Environmental Indicator Report 2014 — Environmental Impacts of Production and Consumption Systems in 
Europe. 
30 COM(2015) 345 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
recyclability,  and  recoverability,  recycled  content,  use  of  priority  materials,  hazardous 
substances.  It  concluded  that  these  issues  can  be  taken  up  more  systematically  under 
ecodesign measures without the need for changing the legislative framework. In the Circular 
Economy  Action  Plan31  of  December  2015  the  Commission  committed  to  promote  the 
reparability,  upgradability,  durability,  and  recyclability  of  energy-related  products  by 
developing product requirements relevant to the circular economy in its future work under the 
Ecodesign  Directive,  as  appropriate  and  taking  into  account  the  specificities  of  different 
product groups. 

EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel,  along  with  green  public  procurement,  are  the  only  policies  at 
EU  level  that  focus  on  environmental  excellence  and  on  continuous  environmental 
improvement  while  addressing  the  overall  environmental  impact.  Whereas  green  public 
procurement focuses on the demand side, EMAS and EU Ecolabel focus on the supply side. 
With  a  focus  on  lifecycle  impacts  (i.e.  impacts  that  happen  in  extraction,  production, 
transport, use and disposal of products) impacts that happen outside the EU are addressed for 
imported  products  (as  many  products,  parts  of  products  or  materials  for  products  are 
imported).  While  Ecodesign  and  the  Energy  Label  can  include  requirements  other  than 
energy (technical or informational) they are still mainly focusing on energy consumption in 
the use phase. Finally, EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are the only tools at EU level that support 
/ stimulate organisations and producers to consider being frontrunners. Rather than the more 
traditional  regulative  approach  used  in  other  aspects  of  SCP  policy  (e.g.  Ecodesign  and 
Energy  Label  directives),  these  two  schemes  follow  different  but  complementary  strategic 
path – incentivising market players to go beyond what is required by mandatory legislation in 
terms of reducing overall environmental impact. 

The supporting studies find that the role of the EU Ecolabel and EMAS are still useful and 
relevant as tools to improve overall environmental performance of products and organisations 
and to communicate environmental excellence. 

The  Regulations  remain  relevant  in  the  context  of  the  sustainable  consumption  and 
production toolbox because: 

  at EU level, EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are unique instruments that focus on the 

overall environmental impacts of organisations and products respectively; 

  EMAS and the EU Ecolabel also address the major and increasing share of impacts 

from European consumption and production that happen outside Europe; 

  EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are the only tools in the sustainable consumption and 
production  toolbox  that  directly  support  organisations  and  producers  who  as 
frontrunners are willing to go beyond what is required by mandatory legislation. 

31 COM(2015) 614 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
7.1.4. Summary: 

Q1:  Do  the  objectives  match  a  societal  need  to  mitigate  the  environmental  impact  of 
European consumption and production? 

The  EMAS  and  EU  Ecolabel  Regulations  and  their  objectives  remain  relevant  as  part  of  a 
package of tools to mitigate the environmental impact of consumption and production and are 
designed  to  play  a  specific  role  within  that  context.  Whilst  they  respond  to  an  identified 
societal  need  to  mitigate  the  environmental  impacts  of  European  consumption  and 
production, they focus on "frontrunners" who voluntarily wish to go further that the standard 
requirements. 

Q2: Are the Regulations consistent with current Commission policies in this field? 

Within  this  context,  the  EMAS  and  EU  Ecolabel  Regulations  are  in  line  with  current 
Commission policies in this field including the EU2020 strategy for sustainable and inclusive 
growth,  the  resource  efficiency  roadmap,  the  seventh  environmental  action  programme  and 
the circular economy action plan.  

Q3:  How  relevant  are  the  Regulations  for  driving  improvement  in  the  environmental 
performance of products and organisations in the context of the SCP toolbox? 

The EMAS and EU Ecolabel Regulations remain relevant to the extent that they have a 
unique focus (compared to other sustainable consumption and production tools) on the 
overall environmental impacts of organisations and products and in directly supporting 
organisations and producers who wish to focus on environmental excellence and continuous 
improvement, going beyond what is required in mandatory legislation. The EU Ecolabel is 
the only EU policy tool addressing overall environmental performance of products and 
EMAS is the only EU policy tool addressing overall environmental performance in 
organisations. Their ability to drive improvement is linked to their ability to identify 
environmental performance and generate uptake (see effectiveness below). 

7.2. Effectiveness 

This  section  investigates  how  successful  EU  action  has  been  in  achieving  or  progressing 
towards its objectives. This part of the evaluation has been guided by the following questions: 

Q4:  What  links  can  be  drawn  between  the  measures  taken  and  progress  towards 
achieving the stated objectives? 

Q5:  What  are  the  main  drivers  and  barriers  to  achieving  the  objectives  and  have 
these been addressed by the Regulations? 

Q6:  What  additional  changes  (positive  or  negative),  if  any,  can  be  linked  to  the 
measures  in  the  Regulations  that  go  beyond  what  was  expected?  Why  have  they 
occurred? 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2.1. Effectiveness: ensuring environmental performance (operational objective 1) 

As explained, there is no data available to compare performance differences between EMAS 
and non-EMAS registered businesses. However, when analysing the core indicators reported 
in  environmental  statements  over  time,  the  EMAS  supporting  study  found  that  EMAS-
registered companies had an average improvement rate for seven out of nine environmental 
parameters,  experiencing  savings  on  energy,  water,  emissions  to  air  (SOx,  NOx,  PM  and 
CO2)  and for biodiversity (see  Figure 11).  For waste and material  consumption, however,  a 
negative  evolution  was  observed  on  average,  with  a  majority  struggling  to  achieve  their 
performance improvement. 

However, as reported under the ‘EU added value’ section, when questioned on this topic in 
the  evaluation  study  survey,  more  than  75 %  of  EMAS-registered  organisations  reported 
experiencing  improvements  also  on  material  efficiency  and  waste.  This  suggests  that  the 
‘generic’ core indicators do not always correspond to the most relevant indicators for many 
companies that often go for very specific and targeted reductions (e.g. reduction in paper use). 
Moreover,  applying  indicators  in  the  same  manner  to  different  sectors  can  be  misleading 
(example, applying the waste outflow indicator to a waste treatment site). 

The study also shows that positive effects increased for companies registered for more than 
four years. This suggests that a business which adopts EMAS tends over time to improve its 
environmental  performance  –  which  would  seem  logical,  given  that  they  have  voluntarily 
committed to do so by registering with EMAS in the first place.  

Figure 11: Average environmental performance of EMAS-registered companies (%) 

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6

For comparison, the evaluation study refers to recent research on the impacts of EMAS and 
ISO 14001 on the reduction of carbon anhydride emissions in 229 energy intensive plants in 
Italy.  The  research  found  that  over  the  short  term,  ISO  14001  certified  companies 
outperformed EMAS-registered organisations but that this was reversed over the longer term, 
with  EMAS-registered  organisations  performing  more  strongly.  This  is  explained  by  a 
stronger  involvement  of  competent  authorities  in  the  verification  phase;  the  opportunity 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EMAS  provide  for  developing  transparent  and  collaborative  relations  with  relevant 
stakeholders  and  a  stronger  push  towards  continuous  improvements.32  This  is  supported  by 
the findings of the REMAS study performed in the UK33 and based on the data of 320 sites in 
Europe  that  concluded  ‘there  is  evidence  that  overall  environmental  management  is  better 
under  EMAS  than  under  ISO14001;  driven  largely  by  better  performance  for  Performance 
Monitoring, Documentation Control and Reporting Environmental Performance’. 

The  EU  Ecolabel  rely  on  criteria  developed  based  on  a  scientific  assessment  of  the  most 
significant environmental impacts and a qualified assessment of the most adequate pass-fail 
criteria for selected impacts; independence from specific industrial interest is ensured through 
the  criteria  development  process  (see  annex  4d  for  more  detail).  In  the  absence  of 
comprehensive data and an adequate  methodology  to  set benchmarks, this process relies  on 
extensive stakeholder consultation before criteria are agreed with Member States. 

The evaluation study found that the existing process ensures that criteria are set at a level that 
reflects the best performing products on the single market. However, it is impossible to say if 
the  target  of  identifying  the  10-20 %  best  performing  products  in  terms  of  environmental 
performance  is  being  met  (the  on-going  work  on  the  Product  Environmental  Footprint  is  in 
place to try and develop a methodology for this).  This is the natural consequence of the lack 
of  data  and  methodology  for  quantification  and  benchmarking  and  the  complexity  involved 
with the multi-criteria labelling and the life cycle stages covered.   

The evaluation study found that in cases where criteria are not timely updated to keep up with 
the latest developments, existing criteria may no longer reflect the best performing products. 
As  shown  in  Annex  4  that  the  validity  of  criteria  is  often  prolonged.  This  prolongation 
replaces  a  thorough  revision  of  the  criteria  and  their  continued  reference  to  environmental 
excellence.  Revising  criteria  is  resource  intensive  almost  to  the  same  extent  as  developing 
new criteria where market conditions and product performance have to be investigated. At the 
same time the sustainable consumption and production action plan and the impact assessment 
for the latest revision prioritised the inclusion of more product groups. 

Effectiveness  in  terms  of  ensuring  environmental  performance  for  organisations  and 
products is facilitated because: 

  EMAS-registered  organisations  deliver  environmental  benefits  and  products 
carrying  the  EU  Ecolabel  must  live  up  to  strict  criteria  reflecting  improved 
environmental performance. 

However: 

  Based  on  an  analysis  of  a  sample  of  environmental  statements  EMAS-registered 
organisations  observed  a  negative  development  on  the  core  indicators  for  waste 
and material. Further investigation of this indicates that  the core indicators do not 
always reflect the specific situation in a sector or the actions actually taken. 
It  is  not  possible  to  establish  if  the  EU  Ecolabel  actually  meets  its  objective  of 
identifying  products  at  the  top  10-20 %  of  the  market  in  terms  of  environmental 
32 F,Testa et al, 2014, Journal of Cleaner Production 165-173,EMAS and ISO 14001: the differences in 
performance. Barriers to assessing this include lack of methodology and data. 
effectively improving environmental performance  pg. 172. 
  When  prolonged  without  revision  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  may  no  longer  present 
33 http://remas.academe.co.uk/ . 

 

environmental excellence.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
7.2.2. Effectiveness: ensuring general uptake (operational objective 2) 

For  both  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel,  the  overall  uptake  by  producers  and  organisations 
remains  low.  However,  there  is  significant  variation  between  different  Member  States  and 
different product groups or types of organisations.  

For EMAS, the theoretical target of 23 000 sites mentioned in the impact assessment has not 
been  achieved.  This  target  was  calculated  based  on  the  assumption  that  all  Member  States 
should  reach  the  same  level  of  registrations  as  the  leading  Member  States.  This  did  not 
happen  and  the  leading  Member  States  (Germany,  Spain,  Italy  and  Austria)  still  represent 
more than 80 % of the EMAS registrations. Reaching that target would require all Member 
States  to  also  implement  the  actions  (‘specific  measures  aiming  at  promoting  the  scheme’, 
‘using  its  reporting  dimension  in  combination  with  other  policies’  and  ‘recognising  its 
capacity  to  trigger  regulatory  relief’)  implemented  by  the  leading  Member  States  and 
emphasised  by  the  regulation  (Articles  32  to  38).  As  described  in  this  section  part  of  the 
reason  that  this  has  not  happened  can  be  seen  in  the  combination  of  drivers  and  barriers. 
While, drivers for Members States to act rely on demand from organisations; demand from 
organisations rely on Member States delivering the benefits (e.g. through regulatory relief).  

For the EU Ecolabel, there has been an general increase in both licences and products since 
2010  with  the  number  of  licences  roughly  doubling  from  2010  to  2013.  While,  this  is  not 
necessarily an expression of its greater acceptance or penetration in individual product groups 
it  shows  an  acceptance  and  effect  of  the  label;  even  if  it  is  difficult  to  compare  across  the 
different years.34 It also shows that while for some product groups uptake has been significant 
for  other  product  groups  it  has  been  limited  or  for  some  even  zero  (see  section  6.1.1).  For 
EMAS,  uptake  increased  by  about  50 %  from  2005  to  2012.  Since  then  uptake  has  been 
decreasing  mostly  due  to  the  economic  crisis  in  Italy  and  Spain  that  impacted  support 
measures but also the existence of some organisation. At the European level the number of 
registered organisation has also been influenced by the introduction in 2010 of the concept of 
‘EU  corporate  registration’  that  enables  a  single  organisation  to  register  multiple  sites  in 
different countries under one registration number only. Given the total numbers and the share 
of producers and organisations that have chosen to sign up for EMAS and the EU Ecolabel, 
the  total  environmental  effects  as  a  response  to  societal  needs  achieved  directly  by  those 
products  and  organisations  must  be  considered  limited  compared  to  mandatory  regulation 
(see section 7.2.8) and not enough to ensure an absolut better state of the environment, even 
if  individual  environmental  effects  for  organisations  or  products  could  be  significant. 
Limitations in terms of uptake also means that taken in isolation the EU Ecolabel and EMAS 
generally have not been able to significantly affect the consumer market or create a general 
transformation  of  European  production  patterns  although  it  may  be  the  case  for  individual 
product groups or organisations. 

The two main barriers to better uptake by producers and organisations are: 

1.  Lack of  awareness  (market recognition)  from consumers  and business partners due 
to the lack of adequate and large-scale promotional activities. The impact assessment 
for the latest revision of the Regulation mentioned a medium-term objective that the 
EU Ecolabel should be recognised at the same level as the Nordic Swan and the Blue 

34 Harmonised guidelines for counting products and licences were only issued in 2014. When following the SCP action plan, 
criteria are developed for more product groups. This generates more licences and products without necessarily saying much 
about the effect of the label as such for particular product groups. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
in 

their 

labels 

respective  countries.  A  Nordic  study35  comparing 
Angel 
national/regional  schemes  to  the  EU  Ecolabel  reported  that  the  EU  Ecolabel  was 
recognised by about 25 % in Austria, less than 10 % in Germany, 35 % in Denmark, 
20 % in Finland and 17 % in Sweden. The consumer market study on environmental 
claims for non-food products36 found that 36 % of consumers were aware of the EU 
Ecolabel, while 80 % were familiar with the term ‘recyclable’ and 69 % with the term 
‘environmentally  friendly’.  The  same  study  also  found  that  the  ‘Blue  Angel’  was 
recognised by 90 % of Germans. In the Nordic countries, the average awareness of the 
‘Nordic Ecolabel is 91 %.37 For EMAS, the survey conducted for the study concluded 
that the ‘lack of EMAS recognition from the market’ was the first barrier preventing 
organisations from opting for EMAS registration. This barrier is particularly strong in 
Member States where EMAS did not reach a significant number of registrations (this 
is  the  case  in  a  majority  of  Member  States).  It  remains  a  fact  that  ISO  14001  has  a 
stronger foothold as the ‘licence to operate’ and hinders awareness and recognition of 
other schemes, irrespective of their environmental added value38.  

2.  Lack  of  recognition  of  the  instruments  by  public  authorities.  Producers  often  have 
expectations  that  products  with  an  EU  Ecolabel  may  benefit  more  directly  e.g. 
through  green  public  procurement,  from  a  different  tax  relief  or  other  privileged 
measures  at  Member  State  level  (see  discussion  under  7.4.1).  EMAS-registered 
organisations expect to benefit from regulatory relief, tax breaks or facilitated access 
to  public  procurement  as  a  reward  for  their  performance  improvement  and  for  their 
transparent  and  validated  environmental  reporting.  This  point  was  identified  as  the 
second  main  barrier  in  the  EMAS  survey.  In  general,  the  experience  is  that  such 
expectations  are  not  met  in  practice  at  Member  State  level,  although  there  are 
significant variations. 

3.  The cost of compliance: (see section 7.3. on efficiency) 

The  causes  of  this  lack  of  awareness  and  recognition  can  be  identified  through  the 
intervention  logic  in  figure  2.  They  include  the  lack  of  resources  invested  in  voluntary 
promotional activities performed by companies but also a weak implementation of regulatory 
activities in particular promotional activities and integration into environmental legislation — 
e.g. regulatory relief (see section 7.3. on efficiency). 

For the supporting evaluation studies, companies and organisations reported that expectations 
of increased sales and access to public recognition are not met. Stakeholders report that they 
see the EU Ecolabel and EMAS as a way to respond to market pressure and showcase their 
eco-innovations.  However,  at  least  in  part  due  to  the  barriers  identified  above,  this  is  not 
always  translated  into  increased  competitiveness  and  market  share.  Nevertheless,  many 
producers and organisations maintain their EU Ecolabel licence and EMAS registration. 

There are also specific barriers that have general relevance for effectiveness of uptake. 

For  EMAS,  the  globally  recognised  ISO  14001  environmental  management  system  is  both 
the  main  barrier  and  competitor.  EMAS  provides  a  more  credible  and  trustworthy  scheme 
ensuring  improved  environmental  performance.  While  the  ISO  14001  management  is 

35 The coexistence of two labels. 
36 Consumer market study on environmental claims for non-food products. 
37 The coexistence of two labels. 
38 For adaptation to barriers see also section 7.2.7. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
integrated  in  EMAS,  EMAS  has  additional  requirements  that  provide  greater  transparency 
and  accountability  (in  the  form  of  public  reporting),  open  reporting  on  important  core 
environmental  indicators  (energy  efficiency,  material  efficiency,  water,  waste,  biodiversity 
and emissions to air), employee inclusion and a more stringent validation of legal compliance 
based  on  the  Article  4.4  of  the  EMAS  Regulation39.  However  in  the  absence  of  greater 
awareness and recognition of this potential, ISO 14001 has become ‘the licence to operate’ 
on the market. 

These  requirements  are  intended  for  better  and more  integrated  environmental  performance 
as well as openness and transparency that should benefit EMAS companies in their external 
communication and compliance management as well as facilitate regulatory relief. However 
at present these expectations are not being met in the vast majority of Member States. These 
also make EMAS slightly more expensive to operate and less flexible than ISO 14001, if or 
when  such  extra  efforts  are  not  sufficiently  rewarded  by  the  business  partner  or  public 
authorities. 

For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  a  barrier  for  producers  is  the  number  and  rigidity  of  certain  criteria 
requirements  that  companies  in  some  cases  must  meet  in  order  to  obtain  the  EU  Ecolabel. 
With  an  increase  in  the  number  of  criteria,  the  time,  resources  and  effort  needed  by 
companies to build the evidence pack to demonstrate compliance also increase. Moreover, the 
Regulation  requires  that  adequate  attention  is  paid  to  all  aspects  of  a  product’s  impact 
throughout its life cycle and that environmental excellence is achieved. The strict reference to 
environmental excellence is also what ensures consumer trust in the EU Ecolabel and is what 
differentiates the EU Ecolabel from other environmental claims available for producers. 

This means that there is a trade-off between the need for solid requirements to demonstrate 
overall environmental excellence and the need for uptake by producers. Nevertheless, the EU 
Ecolabel  supporting  study  suggests  that  environmental  excellence  could  also  be  maintained 
with fewer criteria, although a full analysis of this has not been done. In any case, this would 
be product specific. 

Effectiveness in terms of uptake of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel has to be considered in light of 
their  voluntary  nature  and  their  narrow  focus  on  frontrunners,  who  will  always  be  a  small 
subset of the whole market. The analysis show that there is uptake of the schemes; that this has 
generally been increasing, but with significant variations. It also showed that effectiveness has 
been limited by the: 

 

lack of recognition by business partners and consumers related to lack of promotional 
activities; 
lack of recognition and integration in environmental policy; 

 
  cost of compliance. 

The analysis under coherence (section 7.4) identifies factors linked to overlaps or potential 
confusions between instruments (e.g. Energy Label, EU Ecolabel and EMAS) that possibly 
could affect effectiveness. 

In addition: 
39 According to this article, EMAS registered organisations must provide material or documentary evidence 
showing that the organisation complies with all applicable legal requirement relating to the environment. 

 

for  EMAS,  the  advantages  compared  to  the  global  competing  scheme  (ISO  14001)  do 
not materialise sufficiently for EMAS organisations to significantly increase the uptake. 
33 

  The number and stringency of EU Ecolabel can be a barrier for uptake by producers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
7.2.3. Differences in uptake among Member States 

Uptake of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel varies significantly and reflects the different levels of 
activities in Member States — including human and financial investments. 

Available  data  on  Member  State  expenditure  gathered  during  the  supporting  study  indicate 
that  between  EUR  1 000  and  EUR  900 000  is  spent  annually  on  implementing  the  EU 
Ecolabel.  For  EMAS,  the  responses  received  from  Member  States  confirm  that  similar 
differences  also  exist.  The  total  annual  budget  reported  ranged  from  EUR  3 280  to  EUR 
285 000.40 

The  relative  uptake  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  does  not  suggest  that  the  existence  of  strong 
competing  national  or  regional  label  limits  the  uptake  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  compared  to 
Member  States  where  such  alternatives  do  not  exist.  Rather  the  labels  can  co-exist,  even  if 
there is competition. A study on the coexistence of the EU Ecolabel and the Nordic Ecolabel 
showed that the EU Ecolabel is primarily chosen among exporting companies that are present 
in  markets  outside  the  Nordic  countries  and  among  producers  who  want  to  distinguish 
themselves  from  competitors41.  In  Italy,  the  existence  of  a  private  label  for  tourism 
(Legambiente  Tourismo)  has  not  prevented  a  large  uptake  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  on  tourist 
accommodation and companies have received regional financial support to apply for the EU 
Ecolabel.  It  is  possible  that  national  labels  may  have  a  spill-over  effect  on  uptake,  on 
awareness  and  maturity  of  markets  and  on  resources  invested.  For  instance  the  study  on 
coexistence  of  the  Nordic  Ecolabel  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  found  that  synergies  between  the 
Nordic Swan and the EU Ecolabel are exploited in licensing, auditing, joint communication 
and marketing, while an overlap in staff can ensure effective cooperation. Also, the additional 
burden for companies who have already obtained a comparable national or regional label may 
be less than for a company that needs to start from the beginning. 

Since  European  producers  should  apply  for  the  EU  Ecolabel  in  the  country  in  which  the 
products originates, country uptake also reflects different industrial patterns and strengths of 
different European Economic Area (EEA) countries. For instance, Denmark has focused on 
attracting  the  textile  industry  to  the  label42  while  Italy  and  France  have  particularly  high 
uptake in the tourism sector.   

The  latest study  on  the uptake  of  green  public  procurement showed  an uptake  between  40-
60 %  of  contracts  in  four  countries, followed  by  a  group  of  countries  with  between 20  and 
40 % and 12 countries with an uptake below 20 %.43 It has not been possible to establish any 
clear  link  between  green  public  procurement  activities  in  Member  States  and  the  uptake  of 
EMAS or the EU Ecolabel. 

For EMAS the situation is slightly different, with uptake largely dominated by four countries 
(82% of 4049 organisations registered in 2014). The relative success of EMAS in those four 
countries  reflects  the  efforts  that  have  been  put  into  the  scheme.  The  evaluation  study  on 
EMAS  shows  that  the  success  of  those  efforts  are  not  directly  related  to  the  number  of 
activities,  but  rather  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  selected  measures  or  groups  of  measures. 
Different  effective  long  term  strategies  can  be  identified  in  countries  such  as  Austria,  Italy 

40 Due to their decentralised structure, neither Germany nor Spain has reported its budget. Based on their size and number of 
EMAS registrations, both could exceed the current maximum budget reported (€285K)? 
41 The coexistence of two Ecolabels 
42 The coexistence of two Ecolabels 
43 The uptake of green public procurement in the EU-27. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(tax credit and reduced permit fee), Spain (e.g. strong focus on a particular sector (tourism) 
and  a  specific  effort  on  legislative  liaison,  resulting  in  EMAS  being  promoted  in  several 
Spanish environmental regulations) and Germany (where there has been a fuller integration 
of EMAS  into environmental rules, including  on exploiting the opportunities for regulatory 
relief).  Other  countries  that  took  measures  included  Poland  (in  the  waste  sector),  Greece 
(reduced  insurance  fee  for  environmental  remediation),  France  (relief  on  environmental 
reporting). For the latter group of countries, these measures are, however, either too recent or 
not  yet sufficiently promoted to  close the registration gap with  the top four countries listed 
above.   

It should be stressed that some existing measures related to regulatory relief, financial support 
or lower inspection frequency are in place that do result in preferential treatment of EMAS-
registered organisations compared with  ISO 14001-certified organisations.44 Member  States 
justify  those  differentiated  benefits  through  increased  trust  created  by  EMAS  registration 
thanks  to  its  unique  validated  reporting  feature  and  its  more  stringent  compliance 
requirements.   

To complement the evaluation study an additional analysis of the different measures taken by 
the Member States has been conducted.45 This analysis was based on the measures reported 
by  the  different  Member  States  to  the  Commission  in  the  EMAS  committee.  The  analysis 
confirms that countries with higher registration numbers undertake specific activities that are 
in line with those considered by EMAS-registered organisations as the most needed.   

Uptake in Member States is varied and fragmented and reflects: 

 

 

the different level of recognition and resources invested in the schemes; 

that a strong national label can both compete and coexist with the EU Ecolabel; 
and that the EU Ecolabel is most attractive to exporting companies; 

  having  systemic long-term strategies based on integrating benefits connecting the 
transparency  and  trustworthiness  of  EMAS  to  environmental  policies,  including 
through specific regulatory relief helps Member States achieve better uptake (i.e. 
over 1000 registered organisations). 

44 Although the evaluation study did not conduct a systematic analysis of those measures, such differentiation can be 
highlighted in different frameworks such as:  
- the IED (lower inspection frequency in Catalonia, France, etc.);  
- the Energy Efficiency Directive in Germany (exemption from energy audit for EMAS-registered organisations, not for ISO 
14001);  
- the non-financial reporting legislation in France (recognising the EMAS environmental statement as an equivalent to the 
mandatory environmental reporting);  
- Italian regional laws, which provide higher financial support to EMAS-registered organisations than to ISO certified 
organisations. 
45 See Annex 4c. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
7.2.4. Factors affecting uptake between EU Ecolabel product groups 

A number of product groups have limited or no uptake while others have a more significant 
uptake. Because of the difference in product groups (including the market) it is not possible 
to establish one horizontal measure for significance. However, the evaluation points to some 
factors contributing to difference in uptake. 

Article  6(6)  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulation  states  that  no  product  that  is  awarded  the  EU 
Ecolabel  may  contain  substances  or  preparations/mixtures  meeting  the  criteria  for 
classification  of  toxic,  hazardous  to  the  environment,  carcinogenic,  mutagenic  or  toxic  for 
reproduction in accordance with the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of 
substances  and  mixtures.  Article  6(7)  lays  down  conditions  for  granting  derogations  to 
Article  6(6)  and  specifies  which  substances  can  never  be  contained  in  an  article  or  in  any 
homogeneous part of it at a concentration higher than 0.1 %.   

For a range of product groups such as imaging equipment, PCs, laptops, toilets and urinals, 
compliance with this provision has proven problematic for producers. This is particularly true 
for more complex products for which it is more difficult to have a complete inventory of the 
substances used in the different components, which often arrive from different suppliers. 

Article 6(6) aims to ensure that when consumers buy a product with an EU Ecolabel it does 
not  contain  hazardous  substances.  For  certain  consumer  groups  concerned  about  potential 
health or reproductive implications of hazardous substances, a ban has significant advantages 
and can ease communication. However, since only the presence of the chemical is examined 
rather than the risk it poses, the development of criteria does not take into account potential 
adverse  environmental effects (e.g. when substitution  results in  decreased  durability, as  has 
been the case for paints). 

Article 6(6) illustrates the need to strike a balance between uptake by producers and uptake 
by consumers. Strict criteria and a ban on hazardous substances is a guarantee to consumers, 
but  compliance  can  be  burdensome  for  producers  and  could  potentially  lead  to  a  ban  on 
products  that  may  contain  hazardous  chemicals  while  still  having  a  low  environmental 
impact. 

Specific  product  characteristics,  the  purchase  situations  and  exposure  to  products  with  the 
label  should  have  an  impact  on  awareness  and  market  opportunities.  For  instance,  in 
Germany, using the Blue Angel label on school paper has helped raise awareness about the 
label. The EU Ecolabel evaluation study pointed to low awareness by consumers of the label 
being used for electrical products and that the considerations given to the purchasing decision 
were unclear when product groups were selected for the development of criteria. 

For  electrical  products,  there  can  be  an  overlap  with  the  mandatory  Energy  label,  which  is 
better known by consumers and retailers and maybe for that reason is the dominant factor in 
the  consumers’  purchase  decision.  Although  this  aspect  was  not  further  analysed,  the 
evaluation study also pointed to the fact that consumers on the whole have a high awareness 
of  the  EU  Ecolabel  for  beauty  care  and  cleaning  products  and  that  many  of  the  product 
groups that are bought on a regular basis by a wider consumer base (e.g. soaps and shampoos, 
detergents,  all  purpose  cleaners  or  tissue  paper)  are  among  the  ones  with  higher  uptake. 
However,  some  product  groups  with  low  uptake  are  not  bought  on  a  regular  basis  (e.g. 
computers, imaging equipment, toilets and urinals or water-based heaters). For such products, 
large-scale  public 
environmental  and  commercial  gain  could  be  achieved 

through 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
procurement activities, without contributing to raising the general exposure and awareness of 
the label. 

The 2008 sustainable  consumption  and production action  plan stated that criteria should  be 
developed for more products. Similarly, the EU Ecolabel Regulation mentions that in order to 
avoid  proliferation  of  labels  and  to  encourage  higher  environmental  performance  in  all 
sectors,  the  possibility  of  using  the  EU  Ecolabel  should  be  extended.  However,  no  specific 
guidelines  on  how  these  product  groups  should  be  selected  and  evaluated  have  been 
developed. No systematic investigation of the individual reasons for the lack of uptake among 
a significant set of product groups has been carried out. This results in lack of understanding 
about which type of product groups might perform well in terms of uptake. 

While  some  product  groups  have  significant  uptake,  a  significant  number  of  product  groups 
have limited or no uptake. Differences in uptake between product groups reflect: 

  difficulties  in  complying  with  Article  6(6)  which  relates  to  the  use  of  hazardous 
substances,  which  is  a  barrier  to  uptake  for  a  range  of  products,  including  all  IT 
products where there is an overlap with the Energy Label; 
the fact that health and hygiene related products have relatively high uptake and are 
traded quite frequently across a wide consumer base. 

 

However: 

 

 

there  is  a  lack  of  knowledge  about  why  certain  products  and  types  of  products  may 
perform well in terms of uptake; 
there is no strategic approach to select product groups for criteria development. 

7.2.5. Factors affecting EMAS uptake among different types of organisations 

The EMAS scheme allows each organisation to establish indicators and targets based on its 
core activities and identified environmental impacts and in practice this leads to a reflection 
of  industry  issues.  This  means  that  EMAS  is  open  to  a  wide  range  of  sectors  and 
organisations. The fact that 78 % of EMAS-registered organisations are SMEs (approx. 3160) 
confirms the scheme’s capacity to attract organisations of all sizes. 

According to the evaluation study, some specific industrial and service sectors account for the 
majority  of  EMAS  registrations.  Within  the  industrial  sectors,  ‘waste  and  disposal’  has 
dominated since 2009 with more than 400 registrations (approx. 10% of 2014 total), followed 
by ‘electricity, gas, steam and hot water production’, ‘chemicals’, ‘fabricated metal products’, 
and ‘food and beverages’. Those four sectors range from 150 to 250 registrations. 

In  the  service  sector,  ‘public  administration’  is  leading  with  more  than  400  registrations, 
followed by ‘accommodation’, ‘activities of membership and organisations’, ‘education’ and 
‘architectural and engineering activities, all ranging between 100 and 200 registrations. 

Although the evaluation study did not assess the extent to which the EMAS scheme appeals 
in each sector, the figures indicate that EMAS is particularly attractive for companies having 
a stronger link with the environment or resource issues as part of their main activities. This 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
connection could be linked to a potentially higher environmental impact (e.g. for companies 
in  industrial  sectors)  which  would  make  EMAS  a  more  useful  as  a  tool  to  improve 
environmental management and achieve resource efficiency gains, avoid accidents and gain 
access to existing regulatory relief. However, the higher level of EMAS registrations in some 
sectors  is  also  certainly  due  to  the  specific  policies  and  incentives  in  the  Member  States  to 
encourage EMAS registration in targeted sectors (such as waste in Poland, tourism in Spain, 
and SMEs in Italy). 

There  is  no  clear  understanding  of  what  drives  uptake  of  EMAS  in  different  sectors, 
however: 

  Registrations seem to be highest where the sector is engaged in activities more 
directly related to environmental issues or resource use and where EMAS may 
provide more direct benefits.   

7.2.6. Additional effects 

Both schemes send a signal of support to organisations and producers that are willing to go 
further than what is required. Even when producers and organisations choose not to engage 
directly in the schemes, they can serve as an inspiration and a point of reference for others. 
This is the case for the EMAS sectoral reference documents,46 which are publicly available 
and  can  serve  as  a  reference  point  for  organisations  that  are  trying  to  increase  resource 
efficiency or reduce their environmental impact even if they are not applying for EMAS. 

The  same  holds  for  the  EU  Ecolabel,  where  the  criteria  development  process  is  often 
followed  by  stakeholders  including  those  that  may  deliberately  choose  different  marketing 
strategies  than  the  EU  Ecolabel.  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  can  serve  both  as  reference  for 
producers that want to decrease the environmental impact and resource use of their products 
and as a reference for public procurement tenders. When public tenders refer to the criteria 
underlying  the  EU  Ecolabel,  the  criteria  also  becomes  the  benchmark  for  those  companies 
that do not apply for the label. 

The  latest  revision  of  the  ISO  14001  standard  has  taken  inspiration  i.a.  from  the  EMAS 
Regulation  and  incorporates  some  of  its  distinct  features,  for  example:  environmental 
the  ultimate  objective;  better  description  of 
performance 
improvement  as  being 
environmental  aspects  (as  provided 
the  EMAS  environmental  review);  revised 
in 
management of compliance; and inclusion of an optional external communication that have 
been part of EMAS for a long time.47  

In  this  case  EMAS  has  acted  as  a  driver  for  further  environmental  improvement  and 
transparency  for  the  many  companies  that  will  continue  with  a  new  and  improved  ISO 
standard. EMAS has therefore had an effect far beyond the number of EMAS registrations. 

46 EMAS SRDs provide organisations of a defined sector with specific indicators, best practices and benchmarks of 
excellence to help them further improve their environmental performance. 
47 See evaluation study p. 184. This assertion was mentioned in the interview carried out in preparation for the evaluation 
study by a Member State representative closely involved in revising ISO 14001who wished to remain anonymous. For 
further comparison of EMAS and ISO 14001 see Annexes 4a and 4b.. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
This  would  confirm  the  importance  of  an  EU-driven  tool  that  can  set  the  agenda  and 
influence other (private) schemes. 

For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  the  supporting  study  also  pointed  out  that  stakeholders  gain  valuable 
knowledge  about  the  environmental  profile  of  products  and  their  processes.  In  some  cases 
this can help rationalise the production process, leading to efficiency gains and environmental 
improvements. 

In addition to uptake, both the EMAS and the EU Ecolabel provide additional effects by: 

  supporting  producers  and  organisations  willing  to  go  beyond  what  is  required  by 

legislation; 

  serving  as  an  inspiration  and  point  of  reference  for  others  to  gain  knowledge  about 
the environmental profile of their products and processes or for purchase decisions; 

  For EMAS, an additional effect should include its influence as a driver for some of the 
changes being made in the new global ISO standard that extends effects to many more 
companies. 

7.2.7 Adaptation to barriers 

For  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  EMAS,  identical  barriers  to  those  referred  above  came  up  in  the 
most  recent  revisions.  For  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulation  the  need  for  a  common  strategy  on 
promotional  activities  was  emphasised,  while  for  EMAS  Member  States  were  asked  to 
develop  their  own  strategies,  including  further  integration  with  environmental  policies  and 
incentives based on better regulation. A common strategy to promote the EU Ecolabel has not 
yet been developed and in many Member States a strategy to promote EMAS has either not 
been developed or has been developed without real ambitions. Perhaps more importantly, the 
potential  success  of  such  strategies  depends  on  a  clear  identification  of  agreed  priorities, 
appropriate  division  of  responsibilities,  clear  and  focused  objectives  as  well  as  on  the 
resources  invested  in  commercial  activities  by  all  stakeholders.  These  are  in  general  very 
limited. 

The evaluation study found that that the financial resources available to promote the uptake 
and  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  in  some  Member  States  are  limited  or 
almost non-existent. Low budgets for implementing EMAS in some Member States indicate 
that the situation is the same for EMAS. 

The Commission has carried out some communication activities for both EMAS and the EU 
Ecolabel, but for the EU Ecolabel focus has rather been to develop criteria for more product 
groups in line with the 2008 sustainable consumption and production action plan and the EU 
Ecolabel Regulation. 

Similarly,  the  potential  of  integrating  both  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  into  other 
environmental  policies  at  Member  State  level  (such  as  green  public  procurement  or 
is  recognised  for  both 
environmental 
Regulations. However, success to a large extent depends on the implementation and level of 
ambition in individual Member States and there is no effective monitoring or enforcement in 

inspection,  and  permitting  regulatory  relief) 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
place.  Existing  examples  show  that  reference  to  EMAS  in  EU  legislation  such  as  in  the 
Industrial  Emissions  Directive  or  the  Waste  Directives  can  be  followed  by  the  creation  of 
new benefits leading to an increase in registrations, provided that initiatives are taken jointly 
at EU and Member State level. 

The need to address issues such as more promotional activities and better integration with the 
implementation  of  other  pieces  of  environmental  legislation  is  reflected  in  the  Regulations. 
However  the  number  of  activities  or  measures  is  not  clearly  set  out  and  depends  on  the 
voluntary  commitment  from  all  stakeholders  to  carry  out  such  activities,  and  there  are  no 
tools  to  ensure  that  this  is  monitored  or  enforced.  The  evaluation  studies  do  not  provide 
evidence  to  suggest  that  companies  and  organisations  themselves  take  any  significant 
measures to better target their commercial activities to align them with a promotion of the EU 
Ecolabel  or  EMAS.  This  could  be  done  e.g.  indirectly  through  reference  that  an 
environmental  claim  is  qualified  scientifically  and  independently  verified  by  EMAS  or  the 
EU Ecolabel.  

The  introduction  of  Article  6(6)  into  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulation  in  2010  created  a  new 
challenge  to  both  the  effectiveness  and  the  efficiency  of  the  scheme.  While  this  has  been 
recognised  in  the  implementation  and  a  pragmatic  approach  has  been  sought  through 
negotiation and derogations in specific cases, the overall application still has to comply with 
the spirit and letter of the Regulation. This creates an obstacle to the uptake of the scheme by 
a wide range of product groups. 

In general, the results of the evaluation study48 indicate that EMAS organisations do not feel 
that reforms introduced by EMAS III have had a positive effect. The four main changes are 
ranked below from the most to the least effective: 

 

revised audit cycles for SMEs (Article 7); 

  environmental core indicators (Annex IV); 

  EMAS global (Article 3; Article 11); 

 

single EMAS logo (Article 10; Annex V). 

However, while  most  of those changes  were intended to address  specific barriers (costs for 
SMEs,  international  recognition,  use  of  the  logo,  standardisation  of  reporting),  none 
addressed  the  scheme’s  key  problem,  namely  a  lack  of  recognition  and  specific  benefits 
rewarding  organisations  for  their  performance,  compliance  and  transparency.    Although 
Article 33 of the EMAS Regulation requires the Member States to promote the scheme and to 
establish  a  promotion  strategy  the  following  articles  that  define  the  type  of  promotion 
measures to be implemented (Articles 34 to 38) leave to a great extent the assessment of the 
adequate support level to the appreciation of the Member States.   

For the EU Ecolabel the most recent revision also pointed to the need for: 

  a further strengthening of the scientific basis for criteria; 

 

the possibility to include social and ethical aspects. 

48 For a deeper analysis see point 5.3. ‘Analysis of the effectiveness of the most recent revision to EMAS’ in the evaluation 
study. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Adaption to barriers has been attempted but has had limited impact because: 

Both  issues  are  not  easily  integrated  if  the  aim  is  to  create  a  more  effective  and  efficient 
scheme.  We  also  need  to  consider  the  lack  of  available  data  and  the  need  to  reduce 
compliance  costs  which  indicates  the  balance  of  sometimes  opposing  interests  that  is 
involved in running the scheme. 

  effective  implementation  depends  on  Member  States,  but  there  are  limited 
powers  in  the  voluntary  Regulations  to  ensure  adequate  monitoring  and 
enforcement; 

 

the  intended  strategy  has  not  been  developed  for  EU  Ecolabel  and  for  both 
schemes  there  is  a  lack  of  clear  agreed  priorities,  processes  and  division  of 
responsibilities. 

7.2.8. Effects in relation to other sustainable consumption and production policies 

The  review  of  the  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  Directives  found  that  Ecodesign  and 
energy labelling measures are effective since they bring substantial energy and cost savings. 
The combined effects of the Directives are expected to deliver almost half of the 20 % energy 
efficiency  target  by  2020.49  However,  as  mentioned  under  the  ‘relevance’  section,  while 
policies  addressing  the  energy  efficiency  of  energy  related  products  are  well  developed, 
policies  addressing  the  environmental  impact  of  products  and  their  consumption  are  at  an 
early  stage.  Moreover,  such  policies  are  information-based  instruments  (such  as  the  EU 
Ecolabel)  with  limited  effects  on  many  consumers.50  For  energy  related  products  the 
Ecodesign  and  the  Energy  Labelling  are  mandatory  applying  to  all  products  on  the  market 
ensuring  effectiveness  both  through  continuously  eliminating  the  worst  performing  product 
on  the  market  (Ecodesign)  and  by  incentivising  purchase  of  the  best  performing  (Energy 
Label).  The  Energy  Label  can  also  more  easily  be  integrated  in  Green  Public  Procurement 
with clear requirements for products to meet a certain Energy Labelling standard. This can be 
done  because  the  Energy  Label  is  (opposite  the  EU  Ecolabel)  a  mandatory  tool  where  all 
products who may live up to that standard also has the Energy Label to prove it. In addition, 
Annex 3 of the Energy Efficiency Directives states that Central Governments should - where 
a product is covered by Energy label requirements  - purchase only the product that comply 
with  the  criterion  belonging  to  the  highest  energy  efficiency  possible  –  when  this  is 
considered cost effective, economically feasible and in line with the need to ensure sufficient 
competition.51  For  the  products  regulated  by  both  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  it  is 
estimated that the Energy Label delivers about one third of the total savings and Ecodesign 
the  other  two  thirds.  This  shows  that  it  is  possible  and  effective  to  combine  push  and  pull 
mechanisms. Such a framework is available only to a limited extent for other environmental 
aspects  and  not  for  important  issues  on    land  transformation,  eutrophication,  ecotoxicity, 
human  toxicity,  acidification  etc.  as  covered  by  the  ongoing  pilot-work  on  the  Product 
Environmental Footprint. It is not available for other products than energy-related products. 

49 COM(2015) 345. 
50 Environmental Indicator Report 2014 — Environmental Impacts of Production and Consumption Systems in 
Europe. 
51 Directive 2012/27/UE 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
In  this  context  it  is  only  natural  that  the  voluntary  EU  Ecolabel  only  delivers  a  marginal 
contribution. However, it is the only tool that systematically addresses all the most important 
environmental  impacts  in  products  and  aims  to  support  producers  that  are  willing  to  go 
further in support for the environment and the circular economy. 

EMAS  is  the  only  EU  tool  that  addresses  the  overall  environmental  performance  of 
organisations. Other pieces of legislation regulate specific environmental aspects with regard 
to minimum requirements, such as the Industrial Emissions, RoHS, WEEE, Nitrates and the 
Water and Waste Framework Directives. Such legislation generally also affects all types of 
organisations, either directly or through Member State implementation/interpretation.  

EMAS is designed to encourage organisations to comply and to go beyond what is required 
by  these  pieces  of  environmental  legislation  in  order  to  gain  environmental,  regulatory  and 
economic  benefits.  EMAS  is  constructed  so  that  organisations  can  also  design  their  own 
additional  objectives  and  have  them  validated  by  a  third  party  verifier  together  with  the 
verification of their compliance with environmental legislation. The effects of EMAS should 
be  seen  as  a  complement  to  the  effects  achieved  through  implementation  of  environmental 
policy.  Where  Member  States  have  managed  to  integrate  the  two  (e.g.  through  regulatory 
relief  or  other  administrative  benefits)  there  is  more  uptake  and  EMAS-registered 
organisations  and  national  authorities  have  observed  the  greatest  benefits  from  EMAS. 
However,  when  improved  performance  and  compliance  with  environmental  legislation  are 
not rewarded by any benefit, the engagement of organisations remains low. 

The  limited  scope  of  some  existing  policies  relating  to  production  and  consumption  was 
recognised  by  the  seventh  environmental  action  programme,  which  called  for  a  framework 
that gives appropriate signals to producers and consumers to promote resource efficiency and 
the circular economy. This framework should address the fragmentation and scope limitations 
of the existing sustainable consumption and production policy framework  and identify and, 
where  necessary,  fill  gaps  in  policy,  incentives  and  legislation  to  ensure  minimum 
requirements are in place on the environmental performance of products and services.52  

The  EU  circular  economy  action  plan  follows  up  on  this  by  requiring  the  Commission  to 
examine options for a more coherent policy framework for the different strands of work on 
EU product policy in their contribution to the circular economy. 

The effects of EU Ecolabel and EMAS are, as would be expected, more limited compared 
to the effects achieved by mandatory regulation.  

However: 

The EU Ecolabel and EMAS supplement mandatory regulation in providing support for 
the subset of producers and organisations that address the overall environmental impact 
and are willing to go beyond mandatory requirements. 

52 Decision No 1386/2013/EU. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
7.2.9. Summary: 

Q4: What links can be drawn between the measures taken and progress towards achieving the 
stated objectives? 

Effectiveness  in  terms  of  environmental  performance  for  organisations  and  products  is 
facilitated  because  the  schemes  can  deliver  credible  and  trustworthy  improvements  and 
performance.  However,  the    overall  effect  on  sustainable  consumption  and  production  is 
limited by the level of uptake which for both varies across countries and for the EU Ecolabel 
in particular for some product groups. 

There is some evidence that EMAS improves environmental performance over time, at least 
within  the  group  of  registered  organisations.  With  the  revision  of  ISO  14001  which  adopts 
several EMAS ideas these impacts may widen. While delivering performance improvement on 
seven out of nine core indicators, (energy, water, emissions to air (SOx, NOx, PM and CO2) 
and  for  biodiversity),  EMAS  registered-organisations  on  average  observed  a  negative 
development  on  the  core  indicators  for  waste  and  material.  Further  investigation  of  this 
indicates that the core indicators do not always reflect the specific situation in a sector or the 
actions actually taken. 

It is not possible to establish if the EU Ecolabel met the top 10-20 % of the market in terms of 
environmental performance, but the criteria development process ensures that EU Ecolabel 
criteria  reflect  improved  environmental  performance.  However,  lengthy  periods  without 
revision of the EU Ecolabel criteria may no longer ensure environmental excellence. 

Q5: What are the main drivers and barriers to achieving the objectives and have these been 
addressed by the Regulations? 

Effectiveness in uptake of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel has been limited by: 

 

lack  of  recognition  by  business  partners  and  consumers  due  to  the  lack  of 
promotional activities; 
lack of recognition and integration in environmental policy; 

 
  cost of compliance. 

Further to that the analysis under coherence (section 7.4) identifies factors linked to overlaps 
or  potential  confusions  between  instruments  (e.g.  Energy  Label,  EU  Ecolabel  and  EMAS) 
that possibly could affect effectiveness. 

In addition, the advantages of EMAS compared to the global competing scheme (ISO 14001) 
do not materialise sufficiently for EMAS organisations to persuade organisations to increase 
uptake while the number and rigidity of criteria is a barrier for uptake of the EU Ecolabel by 
producers. 

A  significant  number  of  product  groups  under  the  EU  Ecolabel  have  limited  or  no  uptake 
while  others  have  significant  uptake.  There  is  a  lack  of  knowledge  about  why  certain 
products and types of products may perform relatively well in terms of uptake. Nevertheless, 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
difficulties  in  complying  with  Article  6(6)  are  a  barrier  to  uptake  for  a  range  of  products, 
including all IT products where there may be an additional overlap with the Energy Label. 
Health-related products have relatively high uptake and are traded quite frequently. 

There is no clear understanding of differences in uptake of EMAS between sectors. However 
registrations  seem  to  be  strongest  where  the  sector  is  engaged  in  activities  more  directly 
related to environmental issues or resource use and where EMAS may provide more direct 
benefits.   

Uptake  in  Member  States  is  varied  and  fragmented  and  reflects  the  different  level  of 
recognition and resources invested in the schemes. A strong national label can both compete 
and co-exist with the EU Ecolabel although at times this co-existence could cause confusion 
for  consumers.  At  the  same  time,  integrating  benefits  connected  to  the  transparency  and 
trustworthiness of EMAS is important to increase better uptake.  

Q6: What additional changes (positive or negative), if any, can be linked to the measures in 
the Regulations that go beyond what was expected? Why have they occurred? 

Both  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  provide  support,  inspiration  and  reference  for  producers 
and organisations looking to improve their environmental performance. In particular EMAS 
has inspired improvements at global level through a revised ISO14001. 

The ability to overcome barriers is limited by the fact that effective implementation depends 
on  Member  States,  many  of  whom,  based  on  current  evidence,  do  not  actively  support  the 
schemes.  There  is  limited  provision  in  the  (voluntary)  Regulations  to  ensure  adequate 
monitoring and enforcement. For this reason the effects of EU Ecolabel and EMAS are also 
limited compared to the effects achieved by mandatory regulation. 

7. 3. Efficiency 

This  section  will  investigate  the  link  between  the  results  and  effects  and  the  cost  involved. 
This part of the evaluation has been guided by the following questions: 

Q7:  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  implementation  in 
various Member States and at EU level linked to observed results and impacts? How 
proportionate are the costs to the benefits? 

Q8:  What  good  practices  can  be  identified  for  cost-effective  implementation  of  the 
Regulations in Member States? 

Q9:  To  what  extent  can  the  resources  spent  on  developing  criteria  and  publicity  be 
said to be well balanced? 

Q10: Can any significant differences resulting in significant uptake versus no uptake 
(including  cost  differences)  be  identified  across  sectors  (e.g.  in  implementation, 
administration, including the costs for businesses, compliance or monitoring)? If so, 
what is causing them? 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q11:  Which  specific  provisions  in  the  Regulations,  if  any,  make  cost-effective 
implementation more difficult and hamper the maximisation of benefits? 

7.3.1. Efficiency at Member State level 

The  evaluation  study  on  EMAS  shows  that  there  appears  to  be  a  relationship  between  the 
resources  invested  and  the  number  of  EMAS  registrations.  For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  only  four 
Member  States  reported  on  their  implementation  cost  but  their  reporting  supports  a  similar 
conclusion.  No  estimates  of  benefits  were  provided,  making  a  quantitative  analysis  of 
efficiency impossible. 

The conclusion that can be drawn from what has been made available is that Member States 
invest quite different amounts of resources in implementing the schemes. This is a result of 
the weak implementation mechanisms in the voluntary regulations. Member States are left to 
set their own level of investment and the implementation measures to be taken, based on their 
own priorities and the demand from local producers or organisations. The limited resources 
that some Member States seem to be investing likely also reflect their level of interest in the 
schemes  and  the  level  of  interest  among  producers  and  organisations.  However,  this  works 
both  ways:  organisations  and  producers  also  report  that  a  lack  of  commercial  activities  or 
reward by public authorities and other authorities are barriers for them to apply the schemes. 
In this sense there is a chicken and egg dilemma between investment and attractiveness and 
investment. 

The  evaluation  study  found  that  many  Member  States  consider  the  criteria  development 
process  for  the  EU  Ecolabel  to  be  resource  intensive.  They  also  report  having  insufficient 
funds to carry out the activities asked of them. This is connected to several factors including: 
the  number  of  criteria  requirements  that  are  discussed;  the  negotiations  on  individual 
preferences for criteria; possibilities for derogation (especially Art. 6.6); availability of data. 

The Regulations require a minimum degree of implementation by Member States. Some may 
consider  it  efficient  to  keep  the  cost  low  if  they  do  not  expect  many  companies  or 
organisations  to  apply.  Other  Member  States  where  the  market  is  better  developed  or  the 
tools are better recognised expect  a greater  effect and therefore  may consider it efficient to 
invest more. 

For  EMAS,  national  authorities  may  benefit  from  implementation if  they  make  an  effort  to 
integrate  EMAS  into  their  environmental  legislation  and  explore  synergies  with  other 
practices or controls they perform, such as environmental inspections. The cost of running the 
scheme could be compensated by such synergies (e.g. synergies resulting in lower inspection 
costs). However, this has not been separately studied in countries where such integration has 
taken place (e.g. in Germany). 

All  in  all,  both  schemes  appear  to  represent  a  low  cost  burden  on  Member  States:  some 
Member  States  have  reported  annual  implementation  costs  as  low  as  EUR  3 200  and  EUR 
8 000  for  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  respectively.  Member  States  choose  how  much  to 
allocate  to  the  schemes  based  on  their  own  calculations  of  costs  and  benefits,  while  also 
taking into account political goodwill. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There appears to be a link between the amount invested by Member States and the effects 
of the schemes. The schemes are voluntary and investment reflects a Member State's own 
judgement of priorities and demand. Current figures imply that the schemes represent a 
low cost burden in Member States, with reported annual costs as low as EUR 3 200 for 
EMAS and EUR 8 000 for the EU Ecolabel. No estimation of benefits was provided. 

7.3.2. Efficiency at company level 

Producers and organisations participate in the schemes based on their own calculation of cost 
and  benefit,  still  they  often  consider  that  the  actual  benefits  of  the  schemes  do  not  match 
expectations  (e.g.  in  the  form  of  access  to  markets  or  regulatory  relief)  or  reach  the  full 
potential.  The  reasons  they  cite  are:  lack  of  awareness  among  consumers  and  business 
partners; lack of recognition in public policy; verification/compliance costs.  

However,  for  those  producers  and  organisations  that  apply  for,  remain  and  renew  their 
commitment,  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  the  EMAS  certification  can  be  considered  to  provide 
acceptable benefits. 

The main costs for companies are on setting up, verification and compliance. Verification and 
compliance costs can be divided into:  

 
 

the fixed fee cost;  
the administrative and HR cost of the verification and compliance process.  

For both EMAS and the EU Ecolabel, a differentiated fee structure was introduced as part of 
their respective regulations. This sets lower application fees for SMEs and microenterprises. 

Table 5: Examples of application fees for the EU Ecolabel (EUR) 

Denmark (EU Ecolabel) 
Denmark (Nordic Ecolabel) 
Germany (EU Ecolabel) 
Germany (Blue Angel) 
Czech Republic (EU Ecolabel) 
Poland (EU Ecolabel) 
UK (EU Ecolabel) 
Italy (EU Ecolabel) 

Standard fee 
2 000 
2 000 
1 200 
250 
325 
1 230 
685 
1 200 

SMEs  Microenterprises 
600 
2 000 
600 
250 
245 
615 
480 
600 

350 
2 000 
250 
250 
245 
370 
345 
350 

The  fee  cost  varies  considerably  between  Member  States.  This  reflects  the  fact  that  the 
Regulations allow the fees to be set at national level and that some Member States chose to 
subsidise the fee levels. 

At  a  rough  estimate  based  on  the  sample  above,  the  application  fees  for  the  EU  Ecolabel 
range  from  EUR  245,  the  cheapest  for  a  microenterprise, to  EUR  2 000,  which  is  the  most 
expensive standard. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For  EMAS,  the  range  is  between  EUR  50  for  microenterprises  in  Italy  to  a  maximum 
EUR 2 000  for  a  large  company  in  Portugal.  However,  Member  States  apply  very  different 
levels  of  subsidies  (such  as  fee  reductions)  for  companies  seeking  to  obtain  their  first 
registration. By way of comparison, fees paid for ISO 14001 certification are reported to be 
about EUR 650. 

For both EMAS and the EU Ecolabel, the supporting studies found that the application fee is 
not  considered  as  a  significant  cost  for  companies.  For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  the  major  cost  is 
building  the  evidence  package  needed  for  applying  and  verification.  These  costs  of 
compliance vary considerably and are correlated with the number and complexity of criteria 
for the given product group and the availability of necessary data, which may be individual 
data for each producer. The impact assessment for the Regulation’s latest amendment found 
that the cost of testing associated with complying with the (pre 2010) EU Ecolabel could be 
estimated  in  very  general  terms  at  between  EUR 1 000  to  EUR 10 000.  This  indicates  the 
scale  of  the  differences  involved.  The  compliance  criteria  require  producers  to  obtain  a 
variety  of  data  on  many  different  components  throughout  the  supply  chain.  These  often 
involve  an  international  set  of  suppliers,  for  which  there  is  very  limited  data  on  the 
environmental characteristics of their products. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  producers  reported  gaining  valuable  knowledge  in  the  process, 
which  could  be  translated  into  benefits  such  as  reducing  resource  use  in  the  production 
processes.  In  turn,  these  could  lead  to  both  reduced  environmental  impact  and  lower  costs. 
The fact that the main costs are not connected to the fee but to building the evidence package 
for compliance means that a reduced fee for SMEs and microenterprises has a limited effect 
on promoting uptake by SMEs. 

For  EMAS,  the  major  costs  occur  during  the  initial  set-up  of  the  management  scheme,  the 
cost of consultancy services and the use of internal resources. As with the fee structure, the 
costs  of  implementation  and  verification  for  EMAS  vary  depending  on  the  size  of  the 
organisation.  Based  on  the  2009  study  on  costs  and  benefits  (Milieu  and  RPA  2009)  the 
average  cost  of  consultancy  services  for  the  first  year  of  the  pre-2009  scheme  was:  EUR 
3 712  for  micro  organisations;  EUR  6 316  for  small  organisations;  EUR  5 957  for  medium 
organisations; EUR 7 773 for large organisations. Comparable costs for ISO are not known. 

A similar conclusion can be drawn from the analysis of verification costs as mentioned in the 
evaluation  study.  These  range  from  EUR  3 000  to  EUR  10 000  depending  on  the  year  of 
verification and size of the organisation. Nevertheless, although the costs may be low, they 
can still be a substantial burden for SMEs, even when in some cases the costs can be directly 
compensated  by  benefits  later  on  from  increased  efficiency  and  reduced  costs.  Again, 
comparable cots for ISO are not known. 

The  evaluation  study  found  that  improvements  in  energy  efficiency  can  lead  to  substantial 
savings  in  EMAS-registered  companies.  For  example,  total  savings  resulting  from  energy 
efficiency  in  EMAS  companies  over  two  years  amount  to  more  than  EUR  1.3  billion  (of 
which EUR 1 billion was achieved by companies involved in energy production). Although 
economic  savings  can  be  achieved,  it  is  also  clear  that  the  character  of  such  benefits  will 
depend on the type of organisation, both in terms of its size and activities, and on the maturity 
of its management system. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  requirements  of  the  core  management  system  are  similar  to  ISO14001.  However,  the 
main  difference  lies  in  the  extra  requirements  set  by  EMAS  and  in  particular  the  reporting 
requirement. 

Although  stakeholders  state  that  expectations  of  benefits  are  often  not  met  they  do  report 
significant benefits.53 

In  the  EMAS  evaluation  study,  the  following  benefits  were  reported  by  the  registered 
organisations as the most important: 

improved legal compliance; 
reduced risk of sanctions and accidents; 

 
 
  better  management  of  environmental  matters/identification  of 

roles  and 

responsibilities; 
fewer environmental accidents; 

 
  cost savings through reuse, recycling or a decrease in resource or energy use. 

In the EU Ecolabel evaluation study, the following benefits were reported by more than 60 % 
of licence holders who responded to the questionnaire: 

 
 
 

improved competitiveness and market position for the product; 
increased consumer interest and satisfaction; 
improved overall environmental performance for the company. 

More than 50 % of the licence holders found that they had gained benefits in terms of: 

  ability to respond to a specific request from customer or retailer; 
 
 
 
  meeting export market opportunities. 

improved reputation with stakeholders; 
increased sales; 
improved commitment to environmental performance by management; 

The  findings  on  the  benefits  of  the  schemes  confirm  that  for  participating  companies,  the 
cost-benefit analysis they individually apply includes much more than the simple economic 
benefit. Companies reap benefits for their brand and reputation and from making an internal 
commitment to consider environmental aspects in their processes. 

For example when asked about why they enter the schemes the four most important drivers 
for EMAS registered companies were considered: to improve environmental performance; to 
improve  the  organisations  public  reputation,  to  contribute  to  a  more  sustainable  world  by 
reducing negative impacts; improve management and guarantee of legal compliance.  

For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  the  benefits  from  increased  sales  and  recognition  and  satisfaction  of 
customer interest do seem to be more important. At the same time, improving environmental 
performance and product innovation is also considered important. 

In the end, these parameters cannot be compared. Due to the limited data available, it is not 
possible  to  provide  an  estimation  of  the  net  overall  position  for  companies.  Ultimately 

53 See also 7.5.1. Stakeholder perception of EU added value. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
producers  and  organisations  do  not  only  choose  to  join  the  schemes  for  the  net  economic 
benefit, although it certainly plays a role. For the companies who remain in the schemes it is 
clear that they themselves consider that the benefits outweigh the cost.  

The  potential  for  simplification  and  burden  reduction  seems  to  lie  in  the  set-up  and  the 
verification procedures.  

For  EMAS,  this  includes  the  reporting  requirement,  especially  for  SMEs  but  also  the 
frequency and scope of audits that may be unnecessarily heavy compared to the benefits. On 
audits, special relief has been introduced for SMEs, allowing them to apply for less frequent 
inspections (once every fourth year instead of every third). However, it is estimated that only 
about 20 % of SMEs have made use of this option. This can partly be explained by the fact 
that  many  are  also  ISO-certified  and  need  to  follow  the  inspection  cycle  used  there. 
Nevertheless, the fact  that they choose  to  be certified by both  schemes  does  seem  to  imply 
that  they  consider  that  EMAS  has  something  to  add  compared  with  ISO.  The  scope  of  the 
verification may also be addressed. Under ISO 14001 certification audits can be done based 
on a sample of sites, whereas EMAS currently requires all registered sites to be examined by 
a third party verifier. 

For the EU Ecolabel, the supporting study identifies issues with the stringency and number of 
criteria  requirements.  Some  such  requirements  are  directly  related  to  the  Regulation  (e.g. 
Article 6(6) and the fact that the EU Ecolabel should be a label of excellence (i.e. covering 
the  scheme’s  general 
the 
trustworthiness. Further analysis would be needed to identify concrete requirements. 

top  10-20 %  of  products))  and  contribute 

to  ensuring 

Costs  vary  between  each  individual  producer  and  organisation  and  it  is  difficult  to 
generalise. Based on the very limited information available, Ecolabel costs could be in the 
order €1,000 - €10,000; EMAS could be of the order €6,000 - €20,000). It was found that: 

  The  main  cost  is  connected  to  set-up  and  maintenance/compliance/verification 
activities. For the EU Ecolabel, this cost stems from the procedures needed to build 
the evidence base and increases depending on the number and stringency of criteria 
(including  Article  6(6)).  For  EMAS,  the  cost  mostly  stems  from  consultancy 
services, use of internal resources and external verification. 
the application fees also represent a cost, but this is secondary compared with the 
compliance and verification activities. 

 

Benefits vary for the individual producer and organisation but come in the form of both: 

  direct  benefits  –  such  as  reduced  costs  (e.g.  1.3  billion  on  energy  for  EMAS 

 

registered organisations), better compliance or increased sales; 
indirect  benefits  (e.g.  to  image  and  internal  procedures,  stronger  commitment, 
fewer accidents). 

. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3.3. Efficiency at Commission level 

The cost for the Commission fluctuates depending on the number of criteria and the number 
of SRDs worked on each year. 

Over  the  last  few  years  there  has  been  a  shift  in  costs  for  the  EU  Ecolabel  from 
communication  activities  to  criteria development/revision  activities.  The  increase  in  criteria 
development  activities  reflects  the  objective  in  the  SCP  action  plan  that  criteria  should  be 
developed for more product groups. Given that criteria have indeed been developed for more 
product groups, the burden of maintaining and revising the existing criteria is also increasing, 
leaving less budget for other activities unless overall resources are increased proportionately. 
The cost of running helpdesk services for the EU Ecolabel is EUR 150 000 annually. At EU 
level the distribution of costs between criteria development and communication has been the 
following: 

Commission spending on 
Communication (€) 

Commission spending on criteria 
development 

2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 

212 000 
365 000 
200 000 
175 000 
2 000 
56 000 

531 000 
880 000 
855 000 
1 580 000 
1 222 000 
780 000 

At EU level, the following costs can be directly attributed to EMAS: 

  cost of helpdesk: EUR 185 000/year (of which EUR 100 000 on communication and 
EUR 85 000 on administration of the scheme and maintenance of the register54); 
ISO  licence  cost  for  use  of  the  14001  standard  in  the  annex  to  the  Regulation: 
EUR 25 000/year; 

 

  organisation of regulatory meetings: EUR 40 000/year; 
  cost  of  peer  review  by  the  Forum  of  Accreditation  and  Licensing  Bodies: 

EUR 50 000/year; 

  Administrative  arrangements  between  the  Directorate-General  for  the  Environment 
and  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  for  the  development  of  up  to  11  sectoral 
reference  documents  (SRDs):  on  average  EUR  75 000  per  SRD  (+  cost  covered  by 
JRC not taken into account). Time scale: 2011-2017. 

Given  the  figures  above,  the  approximate  average  annual  cost  for  the  Commission  (before 
considering  human  resources  in  the  Directorate-General  for  the  Environment  and  other 
Commission  departments)  can  be  roughly  estimated  at  EUR  500 000  for  EMAS  and 
EUR 1 100 000  for  the  EU  Ecolabel.  Currently  there  is  one  administrator/year  working  on 
EMAS in the Directorate-General for the Environment and three administrators/year and one 
assistants/year working on EU Ecolabel. 

54 The specific register maintenance costs could be decreased by implementing a more efficient register 
interface. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
These average annual costs cover: 

 

 

the  maintenance  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  scheme  involving  criteria  developed  and  kept 
operational at EU level for 33 product groups, 2 000 licences and 44 000 products in 
2015; and 
the maintenance of the EMAS scheme at EU level involving 4 000 organisations and 
7 500  sites.  For  EMAS,  this  corresponds  to  a  yearly  cost  per  EMAS-registered 
organisation of EUR 125. 

In isolation these cost seem relatively low, especially when taken into account that the criteria 
for the EU Ecolabel are widely ‘re-used’ in green public procurement,  criteria development 
within the Commission and that SRDs also serve as reference point for other companies than 
those  who  choose  EMAS.  However,  for  the  EU  Ecolabel  the  establishment  of  criteria 
requirements  are only an intermediate  output and in case of prolongation without sufficient 
check  on  environmental  excellence,  such  efficiency  can  come  at  the  expense  of  the  final 
effect as well as the general trustworthiness of the scheme. 

The  Commission’s  management  work  on  the  scheme,  providing  the  necessary  intermediate 
output,  can  be  roughly  estimated  at  an  annual  average  figure  of  approximately  EUR 
1 100 000 for the EU Ecolabel and EUR 500 000 for EMAS. This spending is used to maintain 
a system of 33 product groups, 2 000 licences and 44 000 products for the EU Ecolabel and 
4 000 organisations and 7 500 sites for EMAS.  

In recent years there has been a shift in costs for the EU Ecolabel from communication 
activities to criteria development/revision activities. 

7.3.4. EU Ecolabel — efficiency in criteria development 

For  the  EU Ecolabel,  the  evaluation  study  reports  that  on  average  it takes  30-36 months  to 
develop criteria under the EU Ecolabel, whereas both the Nordic Swan and the Blue Angel 
reported  an  average  time  of  about  12  months.  Some  extra  time  must  be  allowed  for  an 
international label such as the EU Ecolabel because of the additional need to reach agreement 
between different Member States - in practice it takes around eight months needed to prepare 
and carry out consultations of the ad hoc working groups and the EUEB and the legislative 
procedure to adopt and publish Commission decisions.  

However, 30-36 months can be considered too long and the Commission is analysing how the 
process  could  be  shortened.  As  part  of  the  most  recent  revision,  initiatives  were  taken  to 
harmonise  and  make  better  use  of  already  existing  criteria  from  similar  schemes  such  as 
Nordic  Ecolabel  and  Blue  Angel.  While  the  need  to  shorten  the  process  has  been  in  focus 
during the development of criteria under the EU Ecolabel, in practice it has proven difficult to 
realise the full potential. Reasons for the long duration include the need to address and align 
views on issues such as: 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  compliance of EU Ecolabel criteria with Article 6(6) 
 

there are regional and national market differences e.g. on consumer expectations and 
preferences; 
there  are  strict  requirements  on  environmental  excellence  (the  goal  to  cover  the  top 
10-20 % of products). 

 

In  particular,  discussions  on  Article  6(6)  require  several  attempts  for  almost  all  products, 
even  if  guidelines  on  how  to  deal  with  hazardous  substances  in  criteria  development  have 
been  developed  by  the  JRC.  Also,  derogations  are  possible  and  can  be  applied  where 
appropriate to ensure uptake.  

The number of criteria also increases the time needed to develop them even though in some 
cases  some  additional  criteria  may  only  marginally  contribute  to  better  environmental 
performance.  The  current  agreement  on  criteria  is  again  a  negotiation  process  for  each 
product  group,  which  means  the  number  of  criteria  can  vary  according  to  the  debate  and 
participation of Member States. 

A lengthy and cumbersome criteria development process may ultimately still be acceptable if 
there is sufficient uptake. However, it is clear that when such efforts do not result in uptake, 
resources are not being invested efficiently. Currently there is no requirement for industry to 
give a prior commitment on uptake and there is a lack of knowledge about which products are 
most suitable for the EU Ecolabel given the different types of purchase that can occur (e.g. 
business-to-consumer  and  business-to-business).  In  addition,  no  clear  strategy  has  been 
developed  to  link  selection  of  product  groups  and  criteria  development  with  the  EU 
Ecolabel’s vision, objectives and target audience.   

The time used for developing EU Ecolabel criteria is not considered fully efficient as: 

  developing  criteria for the EU Ecolabel takes up to  three  times longer than  for  the 

 

Nordic Swan and the Blue Angel labels; 
in  particular  time  is  taken  up  with  several  rounds  of    discussions  on  the 
implementation of Article 6(6) and on a number of criteria. 

7.3.5. Differences and good practices that may affect efficiency 

For both schemes, studies have been carried out to identify and share good practices. A best 
practice guidance document for the EU Ecolabel was published in 201355 dealing with: 

 

the  organisation  of  competent  bodies  (e.g.  clearly  establishing  powers  of  the 
competent  body,  ensuring  adequate  funding,  consultation  with  stakeholders, 
reporting to the public on performance); 

  credibility  through  impartiality  and  independence  (e.g.  developing  a  data  handling 
and  storage  policy,  appointing  staff  members  to  deal  with  conflicts  of  interest, 
separation of award and assessment activities from commercial activities); 

55 EU Ecolabel best practice guidance document. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 

the procedure for assessment and award of licences (e.g. producing a comprehensive 
set  of  procedures,  developing  guidance  on  the  application  process,  accepting 
electronic applications); 

  market surveillance and control (e.g. agreeing a ‘control plan’ with licence holders, 

developing a complaints policy); 

  promoting  the  EU  Ecolabel  (e.g.  developing  a  marketing  strategy,  creating 
opportunities  for  licence  holders  to  meet,  arranging  seminars  and  workshops  for 
consultants and advisers; 

  penalties (e.g. a specific list of penalties should be produced and publicised). 

The document, which was drawn up with the help of competent bodies, shares good practices 
in  the  above  areas  in  order  to  help  new  staff  working  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
Ecolabel and to  inspire competent bodies to implement the scheme in  a more effective and 
appropriate manner. The 33 recommendations are based on best practices in Member States, 
but it has not been possible to quantify the cost-benefit ratio of such measures. 

For  EMAS,  the  ‘Brave’  study  (September  2014)  identified  several  opportunities  for  best 
practices intended to decrease costs and increase the scheme’s benefits for both organisations 
and authorities. Although the study focuses on better regulation in Spain and Italy, it provides 
valuable examples  that could be replicated in other  Member States regarding simplification 
(on  permitting  procedures,  inspections  and  controls,  environmental  communication,  green 
public procurement, financial guarantee, taxes and fees and on financing activities). 

Examples  of  best  practices  can  also  be  found  among  Member  State  initiatives.  These  have 
been  gathered  in  a  recently  published  Compendium56  developed  in  collaboration  with  the 
EMAS  helpdesk  and  the  different  national  competent  bodies.  Best  practices  identified 
include: 

 

legal instruments such as: 

o  recent  rules  on  the  waste  sector  in  Poland  granting  regulatory  relief  and  fee 

o 

o 

exemption for EMAS-registered companies;57 
the  inclusion  of  EMAS  as  an  alternative  to  mandatory  energy  audits  in  the 
German law transposing the Energy Efficiency Directive; 
longer-lasting  integrated  environmental  authorisations58  or  exemption  from 
environmental inspections for EMAS-registered companies in Member States 
such as Italy, France, Germany, Poland and Spain; 

o  France’s  Grenelle  II  Act  on  transparency,  allowing  an  EMAS  environmental 
statement  to  replace  the  environmental  part  of  the  mandatory  reporting  on 
corporate social responsibility; 

  economic and financial instruments (such as tax reduction or exemption, reduced or 

eliminated fees, funds or grants to offset costs of EMAS implementation); 

56 EMAS Promotion and Policy Support in the Member States — Compendium 2015 —  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/EMAS-Compendium.2015.Online.pdf. 

57  Act  of  13  June  2013  on  packaging  and  packaging  waste;  Act  of  14  December  2012  on  waste;  Act  of  29 
August 2014 changing the act on batteries and accumulators. 

58 Related to the transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EC. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 

information and promotional instruments and activities. 

Best  practices  have  also  been  identified  regarding  the  robustness  of  legal  compliance.  As 
mentioned  earlier,59  these  best  practices  are  closely  linked  with  the  capacity  of  competent 
bodies  to  interact  with  infringement  authorities  and  to  provide  extra  guidance/training  to 
verifiers. 

Efficiency  in  implementation  can  be  achieved  through  best  practices  but  this  is  not 
possible  to  quantify.  Recent  good  practice  guidance  documents  are  available  for  both 
schemes, building on best practice in Member States. 

7.3.6. Summary 

Q7:  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  implementation  in  various 
Member States  and at EU level linked  to  observed results and impacts?  How proportionate 
are the costs to the benefits? 

There  is some evidence linking  the investments made (costs) and the effects generated. The 
schemes represent a low cost burden to Member States and the level of investment probably 
reflects  the  fact  each  Member  State  decides  individually  what  it  considers  to  be  the 
appropriate balance between cost and benefits. Some Member States report costs as low as 
EUR 3 200 annually for EMAS and EUR 8 000 annually for the EU Ecolabel. 

In  recent  years  there  has  been  a  shift  in  costs  for  the  EU  Ecolabel  managed  by  the 
Commission from communication activities to criteria development/revision activities. As an 
intermediate output, the Commission’s work managing the schemes can be considered to be 
relatively low cost given that a rough estimate of the average annual cost at EU level is EUR 
500 000 to maintain 4 000 EMAS organisations across  7 500 sites; and EUR 1 100 000 for 
the  EU  Ecolabel,  maintaining  a  system  of  33  product  groups,  2 000  licences  and  44 000 
products.  

Costs to businesses vary, but as this is a voluntary scheme, it can be expected that those who 
commit to the scheme find the cost-benefit ratio sufficiently appealing; there is also evidence 
that  their  evaluation  of  this  goes  beyond  the  simple  economic  benefit,  including  wider 
consideration of brand, reputation and environmental commitment.  

Q8:  What  good  practices  can  be  identified  for  cost-effective  implementation  of  the 
Regulations in Member States? 

59 Page 23 of this report. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Good  practices  have  been  identified  which  improve  costs-effectiveness  but  it  has  not  been 
possible  to  quantify  the  value  of  such  improvements  .  Recent  good  practice  guidance 
documents are available for both schemes, building on best practice in Member States.  

Q9: To what extent can the resources spent on developing criteria and publicity be said to be 
well balanced? 

This  is  difficult  to  answer  given  the  lack  of    detailed  data  and  information.  Since  the  last 
revision there has been a shift in costs for the EU Ecolabel from communication activities to 
criteria  development/revision  activities.  However,  a  significant  number  of  product  groups 
have  limited  or  no  uptake  while  others  have  significant  uptake.  There  remains  a  lack  of 
knowledge about why certain products and types of products perform well in terms of uptake.  

A lack of promotional activities for EMAS and the EU Ecolabel has led to lack of recognition 
of the schemes among business partners and consumers and this in turn has limited uptake.  

Based on this limited information, there are some grounds to believe that the resources spent 
on developing criteria and publicity are not well balanced. 

Q10:  Can  any  significant  differences  resulting  in  significant  uptake  versus  no  uptake 
(including  cost  differences)  be 
implementation, 
administration, including the costs for businesses, compliance or monitoring)? If so, what is 
causing them? 

identified  across  sectors  (e.g. 

in 

For the individual producers and organisations participating in the scheme the main cost is 
connected  to  set-up  and  maintenance/compliance/verification  activities.  For  the  EU 
Ecolabel, this cost stems from the procedures needed to build the evidence base and grows 
depending on the number and stringency of criteria (including Article 6(6)).  
For EMAS, the cost mostly stems from consultancy services, internal resources involvement 
and external verification. Application fees are also a cost, but this is secondary to compliance 
and verification activities. On the other hand significant savings can also be achieved (e.g. 
the evaluation study of EMAS found that EMAS organisations had achieved energy savings of 
EUR  1.3  billion  over  two  years).  Comparable  costs  for  ISO  14001  organisations  are  not 
collected/reported. 

Benefits vary for the individual producer and organisation but can come in the form of both: 
direct benefits (e.g. reduced costs, better compliance or increased sales) and indirect benefits 
(e.g.  to  image  and  internal  procedures,  stronger  commitment  in  management,  fewer 
accidents).  However  due  to  a  lack  of  data,  it  is  not  possible  to  draw  conclusions  on  the 
overall net position. 

Q11:  Which  specific  provisions 
implementation more difficult and hamper the maximisation of benefits? 

the  Regulations, 

in 

if  any,  make  cost-effective 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  time  taken  to  develop  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  is  not  considered  efficient:  developing 
criteria for the EU Ecolabel takes up to three times longer than for the Nordic Swan and the 
Blue  Angel  labels.  Reasons  include  repeated  discussions  on  the  implementation  of  Article 
6(6) and the number and stringency of criteria. 

7.4. Coherence 

The  section  on  coherence  investigates  how  well  the  Regulations  work  internally  and  with 
other EU interventions. This part has been guided by the following questions: 

Q12:  To  what  extent  are  both  voluntary  Regulations  consistent  as  policy  tools  with 
current  and  new  policy  objectives  in  the  seventh  EAP,  the  roadmap  to  a  resource 
efficient  Europe,  the  circular  economy  action  plan  and  the  single  market  for  green 
products? Are there opportunities to align further? 

Q13: To what extent do the voluntary Regulations support the EU single market and 
the creation of a level playing field for economic operators?   

Q14:  To  what  extent  do  the  voluntary  Regulations  satisfactorily  complement  other 
SCP instruments, including ecodesign and the Energy Label? 

Q15:  What  specific  inconsistencies  and  unjustified  overlaps,  obsolete  provisions 
and/or gaps, if any, can be identified with other pieces of EU legislation e.g. in terms 
of  definitions,  reporting  and  key  concepts?  If  present,  how  are  they  affecting  the 
performance of the Regulations? 

Q16: What scope is there for aligning key aspects across the Regulations concerned? 

Q17: To what extent has the scope for policy integration with other policy instruments 
been fully exploited? 

Q18:  How  could  any  possible  obsolete  provisions  in  the  Regulations  be  explained? 
Are there any provisions that would need more flexibility? 

7.4.1. Coherence with other linked SCP instruments 

The  SCP  policy  framework  includes  instruments  dealing  with  Ecodesign,  energy  labelling 
and  eco-innovation.  These  instruments  are  mainly  focused  on  products  and  are  in  that  way 
similar to the EU Ecolabel. In implementing the EU Ecolabel scheme, coherence at product 
level has been attempted for some product groups that are also covered by the Energy Label 
and  ecodesign  i.e.  for  energy-related  products  to  ensure  benefits  from  aligning  the  criteria 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
development  process.  While  this  has  been  explored,  it  has  not  yet  been  fully  achieved,  not 
least due to the lack of alignment in the timing of the different work plans. 

Furthermore,  as  a  voluntary  label  the  EU  Ecolabel  relies  much  more  on  the  recognition  of 
consumers  and  the  nature  of  the  actual  purchasing  decision  than  would  be  the  case  for  a 
mandatory label such as the Energy Label. At the moment some of the most successful EU 
Ecolabel products are products that ‘normal’ consumers come into contact with on a regular 
basis.  

For business-to-business relations, more significant environmental savings may be achieved 
through  single  large-scale  procurement  agreements  (e.g.  through  large  public  procurement 
contracts).  However,  some  of  the  product  groups  that  are  relevant  for  large  scale 
procurements may not do much to increase the general awareness of the EU Ecolabel among 
the  average  consumers.  These  concerns  are  not  the  same  for  the  mandatory  Energy  Label, 
precisely  because  it  is  mandatory  and  also  more  dependent  on  standardised  and  agreed 
verification  methods.  In  addition,  for  some  products  consumers  come  into  contact  not  only 
with  the  EU  Ecolabel  but  also  with  the  Energy  Label  (which  may  include  additional 
information  e.g.  on  water  consumption  in  the  use  phase).  This  can  cause  confusion  for 
consumers and lead to a general reluctance to commercialise the EU Ecolabel among retailers 
who are more familiar with the mandatory Energy Label. 

In some cases, confusion may also result from the different focuses of the EU Ecolabel and 
the Energy Label. Whereas the EU Ecolabel focuses on total environmental impact over the 
products’ life cycle, the Energy Label focuses on energy consumption in the use phase. This 
means that in principle we could have a situation where a product is in the best energy label 
class but with low performance for all other environmental impacts. Similarly, a product with 
the  EU  Ecolabel  is  not  necessarily  in  the  best  energy  performance  class.  In  general,  the 
number  of  EU  Ecolabel  products  also  covered  by  Energy  Label/Ecodesign  is  currently 
limited: for some of them the EU Ecolabel has been discontinued (e.g. washing machines and 
dishwashers) while for others the uptake is negligible. 

The  conclusion  is  that  even  if  coherence  remains  useful  when  developing  criteria  and 
aligning work plans, there is also a need to consider the potential for uptake and the type of 
purchase  (i.e.  business-to-consumer,  business-to-business  or  for  public  procurement)  when 
decisions are taken to develop criteria. 

For green public procurement, the procedure adopted in 2010 ensures better coherence to the 
EU  Ecolabel  criteria  development.  The  GPP  process  now  follows  to  a  large  extent  the 
structure  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  procedure;  both  sets  of  criteria  are  developed  at  the 
Commissions  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  and  the  work  plans  are  aligned  to  ensure 
maximum coherence and efficiency. 

While  Ecodesign,  Energy  Label  and  Ecolabel  address  the  product  side,  EMAS  is  the  only 
instrument  currently  addressing  organisational  environmental  performance  in  a  holistic 
manner (for discussion on the limited overlap between Ecolabel and EMAS see 7.4.3). It does 
so  by,  for  example,  emphasising  the  need  to  create  links  between  the  organisations’ 
environmental  performance  verified  by  third  parties  through  EMAS  and  the  potential  to 
integrate the EMAS reporting obligation into the implementation of environmental legislation 
(see  7.4.2 on coherence with  other EU policies). This  is  natural  because EMAS is  the only 
instrument in the SCP toolbox that focuses on organisations and not on products. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  recurrent  issue  of  linking  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  EMAS  with  green  public  procurement 
also remains relevant. The 2004 Directive on public procurement did not allow products with 
the EU Ecolabel or, say, EMAS-registered service providers to be directly favoured in public 
tenders.  By  contrast,  the  2014  public  procurement  reform  created  the  possibility  for  direct 
references to the EU Ecolabel, but left options open for providing equivalent means of proof 
under specific circumstances. 

The full impact of the recent amendments will only be known after the Member States have 
transposed  the  new  rules  (deadline:  2016)  and  public  authorities  start  applying  them.  The 
Directorate-General  for  the  Environment  has  updated  its  ‘Buying  Green’  handbook  to 
provide public authorities with guidance on how green public procurement can be done under 
the  new  rules,  including  explanations  on  the  new  provision  on  the  use  of  ecolabels  and 
environmental management scheme rules.  

The challenge for the EU Ecolabel is to be prudent in its choice of products for which criteria 
are developed. The EU Ecolabel becomes irrelevant for public procurement when criteria are 
developed for products for which there is no or very limited uptake or little purchasing from 
public authorities. 

There is coherence between the SCP instruments, however: 

 

there  is  some  incoherence  between  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  Ecodesign/Energy  Label, 
related in part to a lack of alignment between the work plans; 

  differences and overlaps between the focus, scope and awareness of the EU Ecolabel 
and the Energy Label mean that it may not always be most appropriate to apply them 
both to the same product; 
the 2014 revision of the public procurement directives should increase the potential to 
promote the EU Ecolabel and EMAS in public tenders. 

 

7.4.2. Coherence with other EU policies 

Both EMAS and the EU Ecolabel relate to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive60, more 
specifically how that Directive applies to environmental claims (also called ‘green claims’). 
The  Directive  does  not  provide  specific  rules  on  environmental  claims,  but  its  provisions 
apply  to  all  claims  made  in  the  context  of  business-to-consumer  commercial  practices, 
including  claims  relating  to  the  environment.  It  also  provides  a  legal  basis  to  ensure  that 
traders  do  not  present  environmental  claims  in  ways  that  are  misleading  to  consumers.  As 
stated in Recital 10 of the Directive, it ‘provides protection for consumers where there is no 
specific  sectoral legislation  at  Community level and prohibits traders from creating a false 
impression of the nature of the products’. The Directive’s approach to environmental claims 
can be summarised in two main principles: 

 

traders  must  present  their  environmental  claims  in  a  specific,  accurate  and 
unambiguous manner, to ensure that consumers are not mislead; 

60 Directive 2005/29/EC 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 

traders must have  the  evidence to  support their claims and be  ready to  provide it to 
competent  enforcement  authorities  in  an  understandable  way  if  the  claim  is 
challenged. 61 

One of the reasons for setting up EMAS and the EU Ecolabel as Pan-European schemes was 
to  provide  an  alternative  to  the  proliferation  of  private,  national  or  regional  environmental 
labels  or  claims  and  to  create  consumer  confidence  in  credible  schemes.  The  less  such 
alternative  labels  or  claims  are  subject  to  scrutiny,  the  less  attractive  the  EU  Ecolabel  and 
EMAS become as tools of excellence.  

be 

validated 

third-party 

verification. 

claims  must 

EU  legislation  (i.e.  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practice  Directive)  does  not  require  that  such 
addition, 
by 
green 
documentation/substantiation requirements are relatively general and hard to implement and 
check  in  practice  by  the  relevant  national  competent  bodies.  This  may  lead  to  a  further 
proliferation of ‘easy’ green claims. These undermine EMAS and the EU Ecolabel because 
consumers  are  not  really  able  to  distinguish  between  credible  and  non-credible  schemes, 
causing them to lose confidence in these types of information schemes. As highlighted by the 
EU Action Plan for a Circular Economy, the Commission is also working with stakeholders 
to  make  green  claims  more  trustworthy,  and  will  ensure  better  enforcement  of  the  rules  in 
place, including through updated guidance on unfair commercial practices published in May 
2016.62 

In 

The  new  circular  economy  package  emphasises  the  reuse,  repair,  remanufacturing  and 
recycling of products. For the EU Ecolabel, the need to comply with Article 6(6) means that 
in some cases it can be difficult to include a priority for recycling. This is because recycled 
materials  may  contain  significant  levels  of  hazardous  substances  of  the  kind  referred  to  in 
Article  6(6)  or  simply  because  it  is  not  economically  feasible  to  establish  the  chemical 
content of such materials. Also, in some cases chemicals may be excluded not on the basis of 
Article 6(6) but on the basis of the requirement for environmental excellence.  

As  part  of  the  new  circular  economy  package  the  Commission  will  develop  analysis  and 
propose options on the interface between chemicals, products and waste legislation, including 
on how to reduce the presence and improve the tracking of chemicals of concern in products. 
The  7th  Environmental  Action  Programme  also  called  for  to  the  development  of  an  EU 
strategy  for  non-toxic  environment  to  replace  dangerous  substances  with  non-chemical  and 
sustainable  alternatives.  In  the  same  way,  the  concept  of  new  business  models  as  a  major 
component of a circular economy imply a shift away from the more traditional linear model 
that  separates production, use  and waste and therefore also include a holistic assessment of 
impacts63.  

A study on the feasibility of EU Ecolabel criteria for food and feed products also looked at  
alignment  between  products  certified  as  organic  and  eligibility  for  the  EU  Ecolabel.  The 
study64 showed the incompatibility between the two methodological approaches - the organic 
system  takes  a  practice  based  approach  (putting  a  ban  on  certain  production  processes), 

61 SWD(2016) 163 final 
62 SWD(2016) 163 final 
63 For example, in leasing or renting models it is assumed that the product is taken back and after possible 
refurbishment should be rented, sold or leased again; in the current general consumer model, the consumer 
may simply discard as waste. 
64 EU Ecolabel for food and feed products - feasibility study 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
whereas the  EU  Ecolabel  takes a  full life-cycle approach.  For  instance  there  are  significant 
environmental  benefits  which  can  be  identified  for  organic  farming  over  conventional 
methods  and  these  are  considered  by  the  EU  Ecolabel.  However,  other  potentially 
comparable  positive  environmental  impacts  –  related  for  example,  to  increased  yield  from 
advanced non-organic methods - also need to be considered to be in alignment with the life-
cycle approach and the objective of the EU Ecolabel regulation. The study concluded that the 
organic  system  does  not  align  with  the  output-  based  approach  used  by  the  EU  Ecolabel 
which  can  be  used  to  encourage  innovation  and  is  recommended  by  the  ISO  standards  for 
ecolabelling. On the other hand the study also concluded that output based criteria for food 
and feed products was currently not sufficiently developed (although future development of 
methodological approaches may change this). To address this the Commission has included 
the  food  and  feed  category  as  a  central  element  in  the  development  of  the  Product 
Environmental  Footprint  (PEF)  methodology  with  separate  pilot  projects  for  10  specific 
food/feed product groups (beer, coffee, dairy, feed for food-producing animals, marine fish, 
meat, olive oil, packed water, pasta, pet food and wine). 

Another central issue identified by the study was a need to avoid possible confusion between 
a new EU Ecolabel in this area, and the organic label which is well-established label in the 
food,  feed  and  drink  sector.  This  concern  was  also  raised  by  stakeholders  in  the  feedback 
given to the EU Ecolabel supporting study.  

At this stage the EU Ecolabel does not cover any food, feed or drink products. Consequently 
the study to support  the implementation  of the EU Ecolabel regulation found that  currently 
there is no conflict between the EU Ecolabel and the Organic Label due to differences in the 
scope of products covered. The supporting study also found that although some synergies did 
exist  (e.g.  is  possible  to  include  demands  for  organic  food  in  criteria  for  accommodation) 
61% of the stakeholders involved in the survey for the study did not indicate that they saw 
any synergies with the organic label. 

The EMAS evaluation study and the recent ‘Brave’ study demonstrate that there is untapped 
potential and a deeper integration of EMAS into national and EU environmental rules could 
deliver  significant  extra  benefits  for  both  organisations  and  authorities.  EMAS  could  be 
integrated  into  many  pieces  of  environmental  legislation,  such  as  those  on  permitting 
inspections  and  controls,  environmental  communication,  green  public 
procedures, 
procurement,  financial  guarantee  and  environmental  taxes  and  fees.  The  following  benefits 
could be expected: 

  decreasing the administrative burden on organisations by: 

o  simplifying the updating and renewal of environmental permitting procedures; 
o  decreasing the frequency of controls where possible (if verification has already been 

undertaken in an EMAS context) and having a simplified control procedure; 

o  reducing fragmentation or duplication of reporting by integrating many environmental 
aspects  into  a  single  integrated  report  (the  EMAS  environmental  statement)  and 
recognising  this  report  as  a  source  of  validated  information  to  fulfil  additional 
reporting obligations. 

  better allocating environmental incentives (financial guarantee, taxes and fees reduction, 
financing  initiatives)  thanks  to  better  targeting  of  beneficiaries  via  proven  pollution 
prevention and control measures verified via EMAS; 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  helping public administration to save resources by: 

o  partly  replacing  administrative  and  on-site  controls  with  a  voluntary  verification 

o 

process validated by governmental authorities; 
improving  the  focus  of  administrative  controls  by  filtering  frontrunners  from 
mainstream players.    

Examples show that in some case such integration has already taken place: 

  at  EU  level,  in  legislative  frameworks  such  as  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive 

 

(IED), the Waste Directives and the Environmental Liability Directive; 
in  the  Member  States,  for  example  in  environmental  investment  (Belgium),  the 
Environmental  Inspection  Programme  (Spain:  Catalonia)  non-financial  reporting 
(France),  the  Energy  Efficiency  Law  (Germany)  and  specific  measures  for  SMEs 
(Italy).  In  those  examples,  the  benefit  for  EMAS-registered  organisations  differs 
positively compared to those for organisations applying a mainstream EMS.   

Nevertheless, some opportunities for legal integration remain unexploited. Such opportunities 
could  be  captured  by  investigating  EMAS  integration  into  additional  EU  and  national 
legislation and by replicating best practices of legal integration in other Member States.   

The schemes are coherent with EU policy, however: 

  There  is  room  to  explore  further  synergies  with  EU  policies  including  the  circular 
economy  action  plan,  the  development  of  the  EU  strategy  for  a  non-toxic 
environment,  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive,  the  Public  Procurement 
Directive and the IED as these could make better use of the opportunities provided 
by the EU Ecolabel and/or EMAS. 

  Potential discussions on a EU Ecolabel applied to food should consider the overlap 

to the Organic label. 

7.4.3. Coherence between EMAS and the EU Ecolabel 

EMAS and the EU Ecolabel have different focuses: EMAS deals with organisations whereas 
the EU Ecolabel deals with products and services. However, some specific cases of overlap 
have  emerged.  The  development  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  for  services  highlights  the  need  for 
further  alignment  with  the  EMAS  scheme  where  they  target  the  same  organisations  from 
different perspectives, such as for tourism and campsites. 

At  the  moment,  a  consumer  looking  for  a  tourist  accommodation  provider  with  a  strong 
environmental profile can face difficulties to choose between one with an EU  Ecolabel (i.e. 
that fulfil established criteria requirements) and one that is EMAS-registered (i.e. where the 
organisation  has  committed  to  continuously  improve  their  performance  against  a  set  of 
environmental targets), without it being clear which choice would bring more benefit to the 
environment.  The  question  of  prioritising  one  scheme  over  the  other  is  obviously  also 
relevant for the organisations themselves. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  current  revision  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  for  tourist  accommodation  takes  account  of 
synergies between the two schemes so as to facilitate the uptake of both. This includes a fee 
reduction for EMAS-registered accommodation and harmonisation of indicators with EMAS 
SRDs.  In  addition,  a  points  systems  allocates  extra  points  to  tourism  services  that  have 
established  an  environmental  management  system,  are  EMAS-registered  or  have  major 
suppliers  which  are  EMAS-registered.  Criteria  are  also  in  place  on  assessing  and  reporting 
environmental performance that is equal to the EMAS standard. 

EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are coherent, however: 

  The  development  of  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  for  services  should  be  considered  in 

the light of potential confusion and synergies with EMAS. 

7.4.4. Coherence with other (non-EU-driven) instruments 

Both  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  operate  in  the  context  of  different  environmental  claims 
and competing schemes. For the EU Ecolabel, competing schemes tend to be national or in 
some  cases  regional  schemes  and  there  is  also  the  global  ISO  14024  type  1  environmental 
labelling  programme65.  The  most  relevant  other  environmental  management  scheme  is  the 
global ISO 14001 standard. 

When developing criteria the EU Ecolabel is always looking to adopt knowhow from existing 
criteria,  but  it  is  difficult  to  translate  these  directly  into  EU  Ecolabel  criteria.  There  are  a 
number of reasons for this. These include: the need to adapt to the specific requirements in 
the Regulation (e.g. Article 6(6) requirements); the need to ensure that the criteria reflect best 
performance  at  the  time  of  adoption  (which  will  be  different  from  the  other  label)  and  the 
negotiation and decision-making process involving all Member States does not make it easy 
to adapt criteria developed in a specific cultural and geographic context. 

There is an extensive exchange of information between schemes that help improve the quality 
of  the  work  done  under  the  EU  Ecolabel.  In  cases  where  products  which  already  follow 
nationally  or  regionally  officially  recognised  ISO  14024    schemes,  decide  to  extend  their 
coverage  to  a  product  group  covered  by  the  EU  Ecolabel,  the  EU  Ecolabel’s  role  is  as  a 
benchmark  setting  minimum  requirements  of  reference  for  such  schemes  (established  in 
Article 11 of the EU Ecolabel Regulation). However, due to lack of resources this has so far 
not been monitored or used as a basis for further harmonisation of ecolabelling schemes. 

EMAS has been designed around and beyond ISO 14001 by using ISO 14001 requirements 
as  the  basis  of  its  environmental  management  system  (EMS)  and  by  supplementing  the 
mainstream  standard  with  additional  requirements  listed  in  the  Annex  2  of  the  EMAS 
Regulation.66 This integration offers advantages to organisations that want to move from ISO 
14001  to  EMAS.  It  also  offers  streamlined  implementation  and  verification  procedures. 
Moreover,  the  coherence  between  both  schemes  enables  organisations  to  be  flexible  by 

65 Type 1 schemes are voluntary, multi criteria based, third party program that award a licence that authorises 
the use of environmental labels on products indicating overall environmental preference of a product within a 
particular product category based on life-cycle consideration. 
66 See also Annex 3b of this Staff Working Document for further illustration. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
choosing  to  implement  the  mainstream  EMS  (i.e.  ISO  14001)  first  and  then  upgrade  to  the 
premium  scheme  (EMAS)  when  /  if  it  so  wishes.  The  EMAS  Regulation  also  offers  the 
possibility to facilitate step-up from other existing (regional) management systems to EMAS. 

ISO 14001 focuses on establishing a reliable EMS, which provides the organisation with the 
capacities to better manage its environmental impacts. EMAS goes one step further by setting 
additional requirements such as: more precise guidance on identifying environmental impacts 
(environmental  review);  a  focus  on  continuous  performance  improvement,  employee 
involvement; mandatory external reporting (the environmental statement). 

EMAS  also  includes  a  significant  reporting  element  by  requiring  the  publication  of  an 
environmental  statement  that  must  be  validated  by  a  third-party  verifier,  registered  by  a 
public authority67 and made available to any stakeholder. This unique feature was intended to 
be the basis for further integration of EMAS into the wider overall EU legislative framework. 
Such  integration  would:  strengthen  the  benefits  for  EMAS  organisations,  facilitate 
implementation  of  other  environmental  policies;  lead  to  administrative  simplification  and 
contribute to a more positive cost/benefit assessment. 

The revised ISO 14001 standards published in September 2015 do not integrate this reporting 
obligation  but  provide  organisations  with  the  option  to  communicate  externally  if  the  data 
communicated  are  compliant  with  the  EMS.  However,  the  revision  integrates  some  other 
EMAS-differentiating  elements  such  as  a  clearer  reference  to  improving  environmental 
performance  as  the  final  objective  of  the  EMS  and  a  more  systematic  analysis  of 
environmental  aspects  and  impacts.  This  convergence  should  further  streamline  how 
organisations  implement  both  schemes,  with  the  ISO  being  the  core  of  the  management 
system and EMAS providing the additional reporting and validation features. 

EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are coherent with other instruments and international standards, 
however: 

  while the EU Ecolabel takes inspiration from other schemes, its different requirements, 
timing and procedures make it difficult to take full advantage of potential synergies; 
the EU Ecolabel’s role as a benchmark for new ecolabel criteria adopted by other officially 
recognised Ecolabels has not yet been monitored or encouraged;   

 

  EMAS is to a large extent coherent with ISO 14001 but offers additional reporting and 

validation that can be used as a platform to further stimulate environmental performance and 
administrative simplification if taken up by stakeholders 

7.4.5. Summary 
Where questions posed under the criterion "Coherence" overlap with questions answered  in 
another section the reader is referred to the appropriate questions. 

67 The competent body receives the organisation’s environmental statement together with the verifier’s 
declaration of verification. The competent body must be satisfied that there is no breach of legal compliance 
based on the additional evidence requested and received (such as a written report from the infringement 
authorities). 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Q12:  To  what  extent  are  both  voluntary  Regulations  consistent  as  policy  tools  with  current 
and  new  policy  objectives  in  the  seventh  EAP,  the  roadmap  to  a resource  efficient  Europe, 
the  circular  economy  action  plan  and  the  single  market  for  green  products?  Are  there 
opportunities to align further? 

See Q1-Q3 (section 7.1.4 – Relevance) 

Q13:  To  what  extent  do  the  voluntary  Regulations  support  the  EU  single  market  and  the 
creation of a level playing field for economic operators?   

See Q20 (section 7.5.3 – EU Added Value) 

Q14:  To  what  extent  do  the  voluntary  Regulations  satisfactorily  complement  other  SCP 
instruments, including ecodesign and the Energy Label? 

See Q1-Q3 (section 7.1.4 – Relevance) 

Q15: What specific inconsistencies and unjustified overlaps, obsolete provisions and/or gaps, 
if  any,  can  be  identified  with  other  pieces  of  EU  legislation  e.g.  in  terms  of  definitions, 
reporting  and  key  concepts?  If  present,  how  are  they  affecting  the  performance  of  the 
Regulations? 

The earlier section on relevance found that the Regulations are consistent with current and 
new policy objectives. Section 7.5.2. below discusses added value from harmonisation at EU 
level. 

There is a general coherence between the SCP instruments. However, it has not been possible 
to achieve full coherence between the EU Ecolabel and Ecodesign/Energy Label because of a 
lack of alignment between the work plans and differences in the focus and scope of the two 
labels.  These  combined  with  differences  in  awareness  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  the  Energy 
Label also mean that it may not always be most appropriate to apply them both to the same 
product. There is also room to consider how better to incorporate both the EU Ecolabel and 
EMAS into public tenders and wider EU legislation. 

Q16: What scope is there for aligning key aspects across the Regulations concerned? 

See Q15 and Q17 (this section) 

Q17: To what extent has the scope for policy integration with other policy instruments been 
fully exploited? 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  schemes  are  coherent  with  EU  policy.  However,  there  is  room  to  explore  further 
synergies  with  EU  policies  including  the  circular  economy  action  plan,  the  development  of 
the EU strategy for a non-toxic environment, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the 
Public  Procurement  Directive  and  the  IED  as  these  could  make  better  use  of  the 
opportunities provided by the EU Ecolabel and/or EMAS. 

There  is  coherence  between  EMAS and the EU  Ecolabel. However, the development of  EU 
Ecolabel  criteria  for  services  should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  potential  confusion  and 
synergy with EMAS. 

EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are coherent with other instruments and international standards. 
However,  while  the  EU  Ecolabel  takes  inspiration  from  other  schemes,  its  different 
requirements, timing and procedures make it difficult to take full advantage of the scheme. In 
addition, the EU Ecolabel’s role as a benchmark for new ecolabel criteria adopted by other 
officially  recognised  Ecolabels  has  not  yet  been  monitored  or  encouraged.  EMAS  is  to  a 
large  extent  coherent  with  ISO  14001  but  offers  an  additional  reporting  and  validation 
element that can be used as a platform to further stimulate environmental performance and 
administrative simplification when taken up by all stakeholders. 

Q18: How could any possible obsolete provisions in the Regulations be explained? Are there 
any provisions that would need more flexibility? 

See Q11 (section 7.3.6 – efficiency) 

7.5. EU added value 

This  section  looks  at  the  relationship  between  the  objectives  of  the  interventions  and  the 
actions that create EU added value. It has been guided by the following questions: 

Q19:  What  is  the  perception  of  the  Regulations  among  different  stakeholders, 
including SMEs and consumers? 

Q20: What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s)? 

7.5.1. Stakeholder perception of EU added value 

Flash Eurobarometer 367 (July 2013) revealed that 77 % of the EU population are willing to 
pay  more  for  environmentally  friendly  products  if  they  feel  that  the  claim  can  be  trusted. 
84 % of EU consumers believe that the environmental impact of products is important. Only 
about  half  of  EU  citizens  trust  producers’  and  companies’  own  environmental  claims  and 
69 %  agree  that  companies  should  be  obliged  to  report  on  their  overall  environmental 
performance  and  the  environmental  performance  of  their  products.  This  indicates  that 
consumers  do  attach  value  to  trustworthy  third-party  verified  information  on  the 
environmental impact of products and organisations. 

As  both  instruments  are  voluntary  instruments  the  intention  is  to  create  an  added  value  for 
those who choose to take up the schemes so that they are seen as attractive in themselves. In 
65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
relation to added value the nature of the schemes build on the added value to participants as a 
driver  to  increase  uptake.  The  percentages  discussed  below  relate  to  the  number  of 
respondents to the consultation activities carried out under the supporting evaluation studies. 

The EU Ecolabel 

79 % of the 364 who responded on the questionnaire for the EU Ecolabel study68 considered 
the EU Ecolabel to be a valuable tool to facilitate higher uptake and free circulation of green 
products across Europe.  

There was full consensus among NGOs (26 replies in total) that the EU Ecolabel is a valuable 
tool to facilitate the free circulation of green products. 

For  competent  bodies  (24  replies  in  total),  the  level  of  agreement  is  91 %,  while  for 
government bodies (18 replies in total) it is 86 %. 

83 %  of  EU  Ecolabel  licence  holders  responding  agree  that  the  EU  Ecolabel  is  a  valuable 
tool, while 82 % of consumers who replied regard it as having a good reputation. 

Among retailers and  trade organisations,  57 %  and 47 %  of  respondents respectively regard 
the EU Ecolabel as a valuable tool. 

87 % of SME respondents and 74 % of large companies respondents regard the EU Ecolabel 
as a valuable tool. 

The  notable  exception  is  electrical  equipment  producers:  only  38 %  of  those  who  replied 
consider the EU Ecolabel a valuable tool for achieving the free circulation of green products 
across Europe. 

There was roughly the same distribution between stakeholders results for the response to the 
question about whether it is beneficial to have a set of common requirements in pursuit of a 
single market for green products. In this case 87 % of respondents consider it beneficial. 

While 95% agreed that the EU Ecolabel should keep existing there was almost a 50-50 split 
as to whether or not the EU Ecolabel should be maintained as it is now or changed. Only 5 % 
of the respondents said that it should be abolished. Among current licence holders, responses 
were mixed - 60 % felt it should be maintained as it is and 40 % that it should be changed. 

Among  non-licence  holders  the  distribution  was  reversed,  with  approximately  40 %  of 
responses  in  favour  of maintaining  the  EU  Ecolabel  as  it is  now.  100 %  of  NGO  responses 
recommended a change and 82 % of responses from competent bodies thought that a change 
was needed. 

In the evaluation, Member States were grouped as high, medium or lower performance based 
on  how  well  the  scheme  performed  in  that  country.  41 %  of  Member  States  with  high 
performance  and  38 %  of  those  with  medium  performance  were  in  favour  of  retaining  the 
scheme  as  it  is.  Among  those  with  lower  performance,  49 %  were  in  favour  of  retaining  it 
without change. 

68 For sample see the section on method. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
When  asked  about  what  changes  they  would  suggest,  97 %  of  respondents  found  that  more 
promotion  and  marketing  were  needed  and  94 %  agreed  on  the  need  for  streamlining  the 
process of developing EU Ecolabel requirements. 

A recent study examined aspects of consumer awareness, understanding and trust of different 
environmental  labels  and  green  claims  in  11  EU  countries,  including  the  EU  Ecolabel.69  It 
showed  that  36 %  of  respondents  were  aware  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  (i.e.  36 %  answered 
positively for the EU Ecolabel in response to the question ‘Have you ever seen the following 
labels or terms?’). 

Of  those  respondents  that  were  aware  of  the  EU  Ecolabel,  over  two  thirds  had  a  partial 
understanding  of  the  logo,  i.e.  they  were  able  to  associate  the  logo  with  some  correct 
definitions but also gave incorrect answers. Less than a third had no understanding at all, i.e. 
they associated the logo with incorrect definitions only. 

Only  half  (49 %)  of  respondents  who  had  seen  the  EU  Ecolabel  before  were  aware  that  it 
demonstrates that a product is among the most environmentally friendly in its category. 

29 % of respondents indicated that they had ‘high trust’ in the EU Ecolabel and 39 % ‘some 
trust’.  For  regional/country  specific  labels  such  as  Nordic  Swan  and  German  Blue  Angel, 
these  percentages  were  slightly  higher  (45 %  ‘high  trust’  and  31 %  ‘some  trust’  for  Nordic 
Swan and 45 % ‘high trust’ and 36 % ‘some trust’ for Blue Angel). 

It  was  also  shown  that  trust  in  the  labels  increased  among  consumers  who  were  aware  of 
them.  This  was  in  particular  the  case  for  the  EU  Ecolabel:  41 %  of  respondents  who  were 
aware  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  said  that  they  had  ‘high  trust’  in  it  and  42 %  said  that  they  had 
‘some trust’ in it, making it one of the more trusted labels. 

EMAS 

EMAS organisations were asked about their environmental performance. In considering their 
replies, it should be noted that replies were received from 467 EMAS registered organisations 
with diverse backgrounds, production processes and EMAS experience and each organisation 
individually defines its own targets based on its current performance. 

: 

  85.3 %  reported  improved  or  significantly  improved  performance  on  energy 

efficiency; 

  75.8 %  reported  improved  or  significantly  improved  performance  in  the  use  of 

materials; 

  72 % 

reported 

improved  or  significantly 

improved  performance  on  water 

consumption; 
  76.7 %  reported 
production; 

improved  or  significantly 

improved  performance  on  waste 

  32.4 % reported improved or significantly improved performance on biodiversity; 
  60.7 % reported improved or significantly improved performance on air emissions. 

69 See Executive Summary and Chapter 3 ‘Consumer perceptions’ of the Consumer Market Study on 
Environmental Claims for non-food products. 
 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/environmental_claims/index_en.htm. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
This indicates that there is a perception that participating in the scheme generates added value 
with  more  than  70  %  of  all  surveyed  for  the  EMAS  study  finding  that  they  improved  or 
significantly 
improved  performance  on  energy  efficiency,  use  of  materials,  water 
consumption  and  waste  production.  This  should  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  environmental 
benefits  reported  under  effectiveness  in  this  fitness  check,  which  although  lacking 
quantification, do show improvements to the environmental performance of EMAS registered 
organisations . 

Among  the  list  of  potential  benefits  proposed  in  the  survey,  registered  organisations 
acknowledged  experiencing  10  of  them  specifically  due  to  the  implementation  of  EMAS. 
Typically,  when  organisations  did  not  acknowledge  certain  potential  benefits,  this  was 
connected  to  lack  of  recognition  (e.g.  regulatory  relief,  recognition  by  shareholders  and 
financial institutions or competitiveness). This is a good reflection of the barriers identified in 
the evaluation on recognition and was more or less similar irrespective of companies’ size. 

On  average,  EMAS-registered  companies  indicated  environmental  reporting  as  the  fourth 
most  important  out  of  eleven  factors  suggested  as  important  for  driving  environmental 
benefits. Other important factors in order where achieving technical progress, implementing 
the  EMS  and  complying  with  environmental  legislation  in  general.  Interestingly,  all  these 
rank higher in importance than environmental fees and taxes. 

improved 

Stakeholders  also  reported  experiencing 
legislative  compliance  (verifying 
legislative  compliance  is  part  of  EMAS  and  if  this  is  not  done,  then  the  company  does  not 
qualify as  EMAS. Opposite ISO, with  EMAS this verification is  being checked by national 
authorities and can be checked as well by other third parties because of the obligation of open 
and  transparent  reporting.  With  ISO  all  information  remains  confidential  between  the 
organisation and the ISO verifier without potential for scrutiny), making them less at risk of 
incurring environmental sanctions. This means that even if EMAS is not integrated into the 
broader legislative framework, the fact that companies commit themselves to the scheme and 
as a result improve their legislative compliance can result in fewer breaches of the legislation 
(with the associated cost that breaches carry for companies and national authorities). 

Generally, stakeholders involved in both schemes considered that they provide added value at 
EU level. However, as described under the effectiveness section, this has not triggered major 
uptake  of  the  two  schemes,  primarily  due  to  lack  of  awareness  and  market  recognition 
including  by  national  authorities  responsible  for  integrating  the  schemes  into  national 
legislation. The cost of compliance was also found to play a role.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
The fact that companies’ uptake of the ISO 14001 international standard by far exceeds that 
of  EMAS  (which  sets  more  ambitious  and  more  onerous  requirements)  indicates  that  the 
broader target group of companies consider that the additional requirements of EMAS are not 
offset by enough additional benefits. 

The  EU  population  supports  the  idea  of  reliable  and  trustworthy  information  on  the 
environmental  performance  of  products  and  organisations.  77  %  of  the  population  surveyed 
for  Eurobarometer  have  indicated  that  they  are  willing  to  pay  more  for  an  environmentally 
friendly product if they feel the claim can be trusted. 

Stakeholders involved in the two schemes generally find that the tools provide added value at 
EU level. This is because: 

  EU Ecolabel stakeholders (79% of 364 replies) consider the scheme to be a valuable 
tool  to  facilitate  higher  uptake  and  free  circulation  of  green  products  on  the  EU 
market; 95% wanted to keep it either as it is or with changes. 

  EMAS organisations (more than 70% of 467 replies) find that the scheme helps them 
achieve  improved  or  significantly  improved  performance  on  energy  efficiency,  use  of 
materials,  water  consumption  and  waste  production.  The  environmental  reporting 
element also helps them improve legislative compliance. 

However, the added value perceived by stakeholders has not been able to trigger major uptake 
of the schemes. 

7.5.2. Added value from intervention at EU level 

At  a  general  level,  harmonising  rules  and  procedures  creates  an  enabling  platform  that 
provides  an  opportunity  for  producers  and  service  providers  to  benefit  from  a  common 
internal  market.  This  is  also  true  for  products  and  services  with  a  positive  environmental 
impact  and  for  the  environmental  performance  of  companies  and  organisations  across 
Europe.  As  illustrated  in  the  intervention  logic  (Section  3.3)  the  EMAS  and  EU  Ecolabel 
schemes established this platform to support producers and organisations that are willing to 
go beyond what is required by mandatory measures in their environmental performance. The 
potential  for  taking  advantage  of  the  internal  market  are  achieved  through  definition  of 
common  EU  Ecolabel  criteria,  sectoral  reference  documents  (for  EMAS).  This  potential  is 
also supported by the reporting platform provided by EMAS which is based on a set common 
core indicators making organisation performances transparent and comparable. On top of that 
EU  added  value  is  offered  by  the  opportunities  provided  by  the  rules  and  procedures  for 
further  integration  and  streamlining  into  environmental  policy.  This  is  connected  to  the 
business  model  offered  by  schemes  that  emphasise  not  only  commonly  agreed  criteria  and 
sectoral  references,  but  also  transparency  and  access  to  information  by  third  parties  – 
including national authorities with the potential to grant regulatory relief. This combination is 
not offered  by other tools  – including ISO 14001, that may be used by some as a basis for 
granting  regulatory  relief,  but  then  based  on  trust  and  without  the  access  to  information  to 
verify actual compliance offered by EMAS.  

Having a level playing field  supported by intervention  at  EU level can be especially useful 
for  SMEs  both  at  a  national  and  intra-EU  level.  SMEs  often  do  not  have  the  capacity  to 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
develop their own system to communicate credibly about their environmental performance or 
to apply different systems. Their major problem is that they often do not have the necessary 
knowledge, which leads them to fear entering markets in other EU countries because they do 
not know which rules apply.70 The EU Ecolabel criteria provides easy access to information 
about  the  environmental  impacts  and  hotspots  for  producers  of  certain  products  and  the 
sectoral  reference  documents  provide  information  to  organisations  within  certain  sectors 
about  the  potentials  and  best  ways  to  reduce  environmental  impacts  and  minimise  resource 
use. While this can be taken up voluntary by producers and organisations who want to engage 
more  actively  in  the  schemes  and  obtain  the  EU  Ecolabel  or  the  EMAS  certification;  the 
information is made freely and easily available for all producers and organisations to consult 
and  implement  without  applying  for  EMAS  or  the  EU  Ecolabel.  This  may  be  an  attractive 
option for many who want to reap the benefits of more resource efficient production or just 
more  environmentally  friendly  products  and  production  in  general  –  but  without  engaging 
actively in the schemes. Therefore the general objective – i.e. to contribute to reduction of the 
environmental impact of consumption and production (see section 3.2.) is not only achieved 
through  formal  uptake  of  the  schemes,  but  also  by  its  ability  to  adequately  reflect  real 
environmental improvements and inspire changes in general. 

The EU Ecolabel creates a level playing field for companies across Europe. By establishing 
EU-wide scientifically based criteria for environmental performance and insuring third-party 
verification, it gives credibility, clarity and utility of  information  to  consumers and  reduces 
administrative  burdens  and  complexities  compared  to  the  administration  of  what  would 
potentially be 30 independent national schemes. This situation remains valid in the context of 
the single market. A study on the Nordic Ecolabel and the EU Ecolabel showed that the EU 
Ecolabel was used for products intended for export and also to stand out from competitors.71  

The recent consumer market study on environmental claims for non-food products72 showed 
that  based  on  an  online  consumer  survey  and  behavioural  experiment  conducted  in  10  EU 
countries  almost  60 %  of  consumers  prefer  to  buy  a  product  with  an  environmental  label. 
Half of the consumers also look specifically for environmental information on the packaging 
when purchasing a product.  

The  study  also  showed  that  one  of  the  main  distinctions  in  the  vast  array  of  environmental 
labels  is  that  between  non-certified  labels and third-party  certified  labels.  When  well 
designed,  recognised,  understood,  trusted  and  perceived  by  consumers  to  be  relevant, 
environmental  labels  can  have  a  significant  influence  on  consumer  behaviour.  Under  these 
conditions,  labels  can  be  a  powerful  tool  to  guide  and  shape  consumer  behaviour  towards 
more environmentally friendly choices. Using a reputable labelling scheme with clear criteria 
will often be one of the most effective ways for businesses to demonstrate to consumers that 
they are meeting high environmental standards. 

Strong competitor labels to the EU Ecolabel exist only in limited parts of Europe and they do 
not  undermine  the  validity  of  a  common  European  approach  and  do  not  have  ambitions  of 
being EU wide. Therefore, it is not the case that the EU Ecolabel is mainly a tool in countries 
where there is already an existing ecolabel. In fact, countries with strong national or regional 
labels also perform relatively well in the EU Ecolabel scheme.  

70 SWD(2015)202. 
71 The coexistence of  two Ecolabels. 
72 Consumer Market study on environmental claims for non-food products. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The existence of other labels and the proliferation of environmental claims do, however, still 
confuse consumers who want to make a sustainable choice. The  consumer market study on 
environmental  claims  of  non-food  products  shows  that  consumers,  feeling  ‘lost’  about  the 
meaning  of  environmental  logos,  rarely  distinguish  between  non-certified  and  third-party 
certified  labels.  Overall,  the  study  highlights  that  consumers  are  faced  with  a  profusion  of 
labels or environmental claims and find it difficult to differentiate between products and trust 
the information available. In addition, green claims may not always meet legal requirements 
for reliability, accuracy and clarity. 

EU  Ecolabel  criteria  are  agreed  among  all  EEA  countries  and  add  value  by  providing  a 
common  reference  across  Europe  for  what  can  be  considered  an  environmentally  friendly 
product.  By  establishing  and  serving  as  a  general  reference  point,  the  EU  Ecolabel  criteria 
also add value beyond the EU Ecolabel itself e.g. when used for green public procurement. 

Due  to  its  structure,  the  EU  Ecolabel  has  not  been  able  to  establish  itself  as  a  ‘market 
standard’ for environmental claims in the same way as, for instance, the organic label, which 
guarantees that strict standards for certain claims are observed. The consumer market study 
on  environmental  claims  for  non-food  products  found  that  76 %  of  all  products  assessed  in 
shops  contained  an  environmental  claim,  i.e.  a  message  or  suggestion  that  a  product  or  its 
packaging has certain environmental benefits. It was also found that proactive surveillance or 
inspections  are  rather  limited  and  in  some  cases  inspectors  have  limited  knowledge  about 
how  to  correctly  interpret  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive  with  reference  to 
environmental  claims.  The  study  pointed  also  to  possible  non-compliance  of  environmental 
claims with EU legal requirements, as many of the analysed claims used vague terms and did 
not  meet  accuracy  and  clarity  requirements.  In  addition,  some  claims  seemed  to  contain 
untruthful statements 

It  should  be  noted  that  implementation  of  voluntary  labels  can  still  establish  a  market 
standard. This can be said for instance for the organic logo, which is voluntary too, but where 
other claims must be in conformity with the organic logo when terms referred to in Article 
23(1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  834/2007  (e.g.  organic,  bio,  eco)  are  used.73.  In  this  way  the 
organic logo ensures for all organic pre-packaged food produced within the European Union 
that although other labels may be used, the EU organic logo must also be present. 

For EMAS, aside from encouraging better environmental performance and transparency, the 
use of a voluntary EU tool based on private third-party verification signed off by government 
authorities has also been used in some Member States as a way to decrease the administrative 
burden  associated  with  environmental  controls  and  reporting  and  complement  more 
traditional  command  and  control  policies.  Existing  exemplary  initiatives  based  on  EU 
legislation in different Member States also prove that voluntary tools can be used to decrease 
or totally relieve organisations of an existing administrative obligation (see 7.2.3).   

However, while having a multitude of certifications at national or regional level increases the 
burden of compliance on organisations that operate in several Member States, the existence 
of  global  schemes  could  potentially  reduce  the  burden  further.  With  more  than  105 000 
organisations  certified  in  the  EU  and  more  than  285 000  worldwide,  ISO  14001  clearly 
represents an alternative to EMAS (4000 registered organisations) for organisations looking 
to  implement  a  more  widely  recognised  environmental  management  system  without 

73 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/documents/logo/organic_logo-faq_en.pdf. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
submitting  to  the  reporting,  verification  and  transparency  requirements  in  EMAS.  EMAS’s 
added  value  should  therefore  also  be  evaluated  in  the  light  of  the  existence  of  ISO  14001. 
However, illustrated by the fact that EMAS deliberately builds on and specifically refer to the 
core  requirements  set  by  the  ISO   14001  standard,  these  schemes  where  not  intended  as 
competitors but should be seen as sequential steps in the process of improving environmental 
performance and credibility. Indeed, most of EMAS registered organisations are also certified 
under ISO 14001 and decided to take an extra step to obtain the EMAS registration.  

Both EMAS and ISO 14001 are based on the same environmental management systems, but 
EMAS goes further by also including Sectoral Reference Documents guiding environmental 
performance  improvement  and  a  significant  reporting  dimension.  The  reporting,  which  is 
signed  off  by  public  authorities,74  is  based  on  three  specific  requirements  laid  down  in  the 
EMAS Regulation: 

  a demonstration of legal compliance; 
  a mandatory external communication; which includes reporting on a set of indicators 

(environmental statement); 

  consultation  with  national  authorities  on  potential  outstanding  compliance  or  other 

issues and registration by the national competent body. 

Due to its public nature, its reporting feature and the signing-off of this reporting by public 
authorities,  the  EMAS  environmental  management  scheme  offers  the  highest  potential  for 
being  taken  into  account  by  public  authorities  when  considering  regulatory  relief  or 
integration  with  other  policies.  In  the  period  evaluated,  EMAS  demonstrated  a  proven 
capacity to be used to replace legal obligations and to more efficiently manage administrative 
controls  in  different  Member  States  and  in  such  cases  also  to  lighten  the  administrative 
burden  on  organisations.  While  regulatory  relief  may  also  be  granted  on  the  basis  of  ISO 
14001;  in  such  cases  regulatory  relief  is  granted  based  on  trust  and  without  access  to 
information  by  national  authorities  on  actual  compliance  and  performance  of  the 
organisation. 

EMAS  reporting  (i.e.  the  environmental  statement)  can  also  potentially  be  used  to  comply 
with  the  requirements  of  other  policies  such  as  the  new  Non-financial  Reporting  Directive, 
for  international  voluntary  initiatives  such  as  the  UN  Global  Compact  or  to  show 
commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals on the inclusion of sustainability in 
environmental reporting. 

There  is  possible  added  value  at  Member  State  level  when  countries  see  and  trust  the 
potential of EMAS and understand how to integrate the scheme into a strategic environmental 
framework  e.g.  by  exploiting  the  synergies  between  collection  and  verification  of  data  at 
organisational level and the streamlining of environmental inspections with the possibilities 
for regulatory relief. However, a majority of Member States have not recognised this added 
value  or  have  not  invested  the  resources  needed  to  realise  it.  According  to  the  supporting 
study, those differences in recognition are mainly caused by how the EMAS and ISO 14001 
schemes are implemented in the different Member States and by the level of trust authorities 
have  in  environmental  certification  in  general.  Obviously,  if  there  are  a  low  number  of 
registered organisations in a particular Member State, this can discourage that country from 
making the effort to further integrate the scheme in its environmental framework. 

74 This differentiation, which is intrinsically linked with the public nature of the EMAS instrument, will not be 
touched during the revision of ISO. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Member States that have recognised this added value (such as Austria or Germany) have also 
put  in  place  the  conditions  for  robust  verification  of  legal  compliance  through  EMAS 
registration,75 contributing to increased trust in the scheme. This has mainly been done by: 

  assuring efficient communication between EMAS competent bodies and authorities; 
  providing  additional  guidance  to  EMAS  verifiers,  stressing  the  specific  EMAS 
requirements  on  verification  of  legal  compliance,  which  differentiate  EMAS  from  ISO 
14001 requirements. 

The fact that EMAS competent bodies cannot register and should suspend any organisation 
accused of a breach of legal compliance until the issue has been solved also strengthens the 
trust authorities have in EMAS. By contrast, ISO certification can be delivered based on an 
action plan to solve such issues which would then require control that this is actually done; 
and without allowing national authorities with access to information. 

EMAS offers additional added value because it can differentiate those who are willing to take 
an  extra  step  from  mainstream  organisations  or  those  who  are  ISO  certified.  Organisations 
wanting  to  be  recognised  (by  a  third  party)  for  going  the  extra  mile  and  accepting  full 
transparency on their performance can obtain credible recognition through EMAS registration 
and production of the required reports. The scheme can demonstrate that organisations have 
improved  their  environmental  performance  on  specific  environmental  aspects  monitored 
through core indicators and sectoral benchmarks of excellence. Although other tools can also 
contribute  to  performance  improvement,  EMAS  has  the  capacity  to  demonstrate  this  in  a 
credible and structural way. This allows EMAS-registered organisations to stand out from the 
285 000 organisations using ISO 140001 as a licence to operate in the EU. 

EMAS  also  differentiates  in  its  capacity  to  deliver  improvements  in  environmental 
performance. Based on desk research,76 the evaluation study indicates that EMAS does result 
in  better environmental performance than the ISO standard. The fact that specific reporting 
on core indicators is set up within EMAS also makes it easier to use EMAS as a strategic tool 
to stimulate specific improvements. The existence of sectoral reference documents proposing 
best  environmental  management  practices,  sector  specific  indicators  and  benchmark  of 
excellence also contribute to strengthen EMAS capacity to trigger performance improvement.  

As shown in the chart below, EMAS has distinctive features which play an important role in 
improving organisations’ environmental performance. However, most Member States do not 
recognise the extra achievement of organisations complying with the requirements specific to 
EMAS.  This  prevents  the  scheme  from  deliver  a  sufficient  added  value  to  environmental 
front runners. 

Figure 12: Environmental performance improvement process: EMAS added value: 

75 By contrast, a Member State applying the same conditions of verification to ISO 14001 and EMAS logically 
does not recognise the added value of EMAS with regard to delivering regulatory relief. 
76 Evaluation study page 192. Reference to ‘Testa, F., Rizzi, F., Daddi, T., Gusmerotti, N.M., Iraldo, F. and M. 
Frey 2014, EMAS and ISO 14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance. 
Journal of Cleaner Production 68:1, pp. 165-173.’ 
Also REMAS study http://remas.academe.co.uk/. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Finally, EMAS has demonstrated its capacity (and therefore the EU’s capacity) to contribute 
to  setting  the  agenda  for  the  development  of  organisations’  environmental  management 
capabilities  and  ambitions.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  analysis  of  the  new  provisions  in  the 
draft  ISO  14001:2015  standard.  These  new  provisions,  which  are  aimed  at  scaling  up  the 
scheme, contain new features directly inspired by EMAS, such as more focus on continuous 
performance  improvement,  stronger  commitment  on  compliance  obligations  and  optional 
external communication. The new provisions were also inspired by interviews with Member 
State  representatives,  which  revealed  that  EMAS  was  taken  as  a  reference  point  when 
developing national/regional informal environmental management standards. 

Ultimately,  EU  added  value  for  final  environmental  effects  has  to  be  compared  against  the 
uptake of the schemes. For EMAS as for the EU Ecolabel, the level of uptake also means that 
the  final  environmental  benefit  directly  achieved  is  limited.  It  is  also  clear  that  the  value 
added  —  or  perhaps  value  given  —  differs  from  Member  State  to  Member  State  and  from 
company to company. Both instruments are voluntary and the value given is largely decided 
at  Member  State  or  at  company  level.  The  reasons  for  using  the  scheme  may  also  vary 
considerably. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
While it is difficult to say what kind of value added could be expected from voluntary tools, it 
is  clear  that  value  added  could  be  increased  by  increased  uptake.  For  green  public 
procurement,  a  voluntary  target  of  50 %  has  been  set  to  stimulate  more  green  activities. 
However, it is also clear that voluntary targets need to be followed by actions if they are to be 
met. 

The EMAS and EU Ecolabel schemes provide added value by creating an enabling platform 
for environmental claims across Europe. This platform provides: 

  harmonised rules and procedures across the internal market; 
  credibility and transparency for claims, based on 3rd party verification; 
 

information on and a common reference for environmental performance of products 
and organisations; 
the opportunity for integration and streamlining with other EU policies; 

 
  support for producers and organisations that are willing to go beyond mandatory 

measures, including especially for SMEs. 

However this potential is not being fully realised as:.  

 

 

the platform has not been attractive enough to create a drive for major uptake and 
thus for a significant shift in the market and to realise the potential for 
environmental benefits through sustainable consumption and production. 
ISO14001 provides a "lesser" but more widespread alternative to EMAS with 
harmonised rules and procedures for environmental management at global level but 
without  the EMAS-specific SRDs guiding performance improvement or a 
independently verified compliance and reporting platform with the same potential to 
trigger regulatory relief and decrease administrative burden tied to EU reporting.  

7.5.3. Summary: 

Q19:  What  is  the  perception  of  the  Regulations  among  different  stakeholders,  including 
SMEs and consumers? 

The  EU  population  supports  the  idea  of  reliable  and  trustworthy  information  on  the 
environmental  performance  of  products  and  organisations.  Stakeholders  involved  in  the 
schemes generally find that the tools provide added value at EU level. Stakeholders consider 
the EU Ecolabel to be a valuable tool to facilitate higher uptake and free circulation of green 
products on the EU market and want to keep it as a tool. EMAS organisations find that the 
scheme’s  environmental  reporting  element  helps  them  achieve  a  good  environmental 
performance and improve legislative compliance. 

Q20: What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s)? 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The EMAS and EU Ecolabel schemes provide added value by creating a platform for 
environmental claims across Europe. This platform provides: 

  harmonised rules and procedures across the internal market; 
  credibility and transparency for claims; 
 

information on and a common reference for environmental performance of products 
and organisations; 
the opportunity for integration and streamlining with other EU policies; 

 
  support for producers and organisations that are willing to go beyond mandatory 

measures, including especially for SMEs. 

However, the schemes have not been attractive enough to bring major uptake and therefore 
also a significant shift in the market and thus do not realise their full potential to deliver 
environmental benefits through sustainable consumption and production. Also, ISO14001 
provides an alternative to EMAS with harmonised rules and procedures for environmental 
management at global level but without providing the EMAS-specific SRDs guiding 
environmental performance improvement or a compliance and reporting platform with the 
same capacity to trigger regulatory relief and lighten the administrative burden. 

Section 8 Conclusions 

Both EMAS  and  the EU Ecolabel are voluntary  tools intended to  support  more sustainable 
production  and  consumption.  The  voluntary  nature  of  the  Regulations  puts  significant 
constraints  on  the  data  that  can  be  obtained  on  the  schemes’  performance  —  especially  in 
relation to quantification and benchmarking. Not least, data are only available for those who 
actually participate in the scheme and not for the market or the sector as a whole. 

Evaluating  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  involves  a  diversity  and  complexity  of  issues  that 
need  to  be  addressed.  For  example,  all  environmental  impacts  (not  just  individual 
components like energy use or NOx emissions, which can be measured and compared) and 
all stages of the life-cycle (not just in the use-phase as is most common) need to be assessed. 

The  lack  of  a  commonly  agreed  method  to  measure  and  benchmark  the  environmental 
performance of products and organisations limits the possibility to transform the existing data 
into something that can be used for comparison and evaluation. This is most obvious for the 
EU  Ecolabel,  which  is  defined  as  a  label  of  excellence  with  a  benchmark  of  the  10-20 % 
products  with  the  best  environmental  performance  on  the  market.  However,  this  is  equally 
important  for  EMAS,  where  comparison  against  a  baseline  or  ISO  14001  could  have  been 
useful in the absence of a well-defined target for the environmental improvement objective. 

The  development  of  the  product  and  organisational  environmental  footprint  should  provide 
us  with  a  method  for  quantifying  and  benchmarking  products’  and  organisations’ 
environmental  performance.  However,  work  on  this  is  still  in  a  pilot  phase  and  was  not 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
available  for  this  fitness  check.  Moreover,  having  a  method  will  not  solve  the  problem  of 
data availability. 

Finally,  in  the  Regulations  no  quantitative  targets  has  been  established  and  agreed  for  the 
uptake  of  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  by  producers,  organisations  or  consumers  against 
which  the  other  main  objective  of  this  fitness  check  could  be  evaluated  in  terms  of 
effectiveness and efficiency. 

These (pre-existing) limits and constraints affect the results that could be obtained through 
this fitness check also when compared with what can be expected from other fitness checks. 
However the work presented here provides a comprehensive understanding and sufficient 
evidence to draw conclusions about how the schemes function and perform and the different 
barriers and drivers they experience. However it is not possible to measure in a quantitative 
way whether the Regulations have met their objectives. 

As to the objectives of the Regulations, we can conclude the following from the findings of 
this fitness check: 

  The contribution of the regulations to the general objective established for this fitness 
check  (i.e.  to  reduce  the  environmental  impact  of  consumption  and  production)  is 
limited by the level of uptake of the schemes.  

  The  contribution  of  the  regulations  to  the  specific  objectives  (i.e.  to  promote 
continuous  improvements  in  the  environmental  performance  of  organisations  and 
promote  products  with  reduced  environmental  impact),  is  partly  delivered  by 
providing  an  institutional  platform  for  the  voluntary  promotion  of  products  and 
organisations across the single market 

  The regulation on the one hand in general delivers on operational objective 1 (i.e. to 
ensure environmental performance through EMAS and the EU Ecolabel) through the 
EU  Ecolabel  criteria  and  through  the  environmental  improvements  in  organisations. 
On  the  other  hand  it  delivers  only  partly  on  operational  objective  2  (i.e.  ensuring 
uptake  of  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel)  through  the  limitations  in  final  uptake  by 
producers and organisations. 

With regard to the five evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and 
EU added value), based on the findings of this fitness check it can be concluded that:  

The Regulations are relevant as responses to a growing need to change current consumption 
and production patterns; something that is also reflected in current policy objectives. Among 
EU  tools,  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  (together  with  green  public  procurement)  are  also 
unique  in  that  they  address  the  total  environmental  impact  of  the  whole  life  cycle,  thus 
addressing  the  increasing  number  of  impacts  that  happen  outside  Europe.  The  ability  to 
address this need is related to the effectiveness of the schemes. 

The  Regulations  can  be  considered  partly  effective  as  voluntary  instruments  to  promote 
environmental  improvements  in  products  and  organisations.  A  framework  has  been 
established that facilitates the distinction and promotion of the environmental performance of 
products and organisation through use of the EU Ecolabel and EMAS certification. However, 
the main limitation to the overall effectiveness is the take-up. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Within  the  framework  the  process  of  developing  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  ensures  that  criteria 
reflect improved environmental performance for products that carry the label. However, the 
quantitative  benchmark  of  environmental  excellence  (covering  the  top  10-20 %  of 
environmental performance of products on the market) cannot be verified due to the lack of 
an agreed methodology and data. Also, in some cases where criteria are extended without a 
thorough  analysis  of  the  market  situation,  the  EU  Ecolabel  may  no  longer  reflect 
environmental excellence. 

Within the framework, EMAS organisations deliver improved environmental performance on 
seven out of nine core indicators (energy, water, CO2, NOx, SOx, PM and biodiversity), with, 
two  indicators  (waste  and  materials),  the  indictors  are  negative.  However,  most  EMAS-
registered  organisations  do  experience  an  improvement  also  on  waste  and  materials, 
indicating that the core indicators may not accurately reflect the position in a specific sector 
or  of  the  action  taken.  Studies  point  out  that  EMAS  generally  delivers  a  better  increase  in 
environmental  performance  than  ISO  14001.  On  the  other  hand,  the  much  lower  uptake  of 
EMAS (4000 organisations in the EU) compared to 105,000 for ISO, signals a lower overall 
impact. 

However, effectiveness compared to overall societal needs is limited as far as the framework 
does  not  facilitate  sufficient  uptake of  EMAS  and  the  EU Ecolabel  to drive the  market  and 
thus  achieve  environmental  benefits  and  significant  changes  in  overall  consumption  and 
production  patterns.  Generally,  stakeholders  agree  on  three  main  barriers  to  uptake  that  are 
common to EMAS and the EU Ecolabel: 

 

 

lack  of  market  reward:  this  means  that  producers  and  organisations  participating  in 
the schemes do not consider that their expectations of increased sales and turnover are 
met. The dominant reason given for this is lack of awareness among consumers and 
business partners due to lack of commercial and promotional activities; 
lack  of  recognition  in  public  policy:  this  means  that  producers  and  organisations 
participating  in  the  schemes  do  not  feel  that  public  policy  offers  significant 
recognition such as access to public procurement or regulatory or tax relief; 

  compliance and verification cost: such costs are connected to the cost and complexity 
of  internal  procedures  needed  to  demonstrate  compliance  rather  than  the  actual 
application fee. 

For  both  schemes,  uptake  varies  greatly  from  Member  State  to  Member  State  and  in  part, 
reflects  the  resources  invested  in  the  schemes.  For  EMAS  in  particular,  the  most  effective 
uptake  is  achieved  where  Member  States  are  successful  in  integrating  EMAS  into  their 
environmental  policy  framework  and  ensuring  support  through  regulatory  relief  or  other 
support measures e.g. in connection to environmental inspections. This approach has achieved 
relatively  better  results.  Germany,  Spain,  Italy  and  Austria,  who  have  been  active  in 
delivering such specific measures accompanied by information and promotion activities, are 
also the leading countries for uptake of EMAS.  

For the EU Ecolabel, it has not possible to establish direct causal links with the data provided 
for this fitness check. However, the existence of a strong national or regional ecolabel does 
not indicate that fewer resources are invested in the EU Ecolabel or that there is less uptake 
by producers compared with Member States where such a label is not in place. This suggests 
that  the  existence  of  strong  national  labels  is  not  the  first  barrier  to  uptake  –  but  that  two 
labels can coexist if the market is developed. Although it has not been possible to establish a 
direct causal relationship it is clear that there is a large potential to enhance the market value 
of the EU Ecolabel through green public procurement activities at Member State level. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
For the EU Ecolabel significant uptake is achieved for some product groups but also marginal 
or no uptake is observed for a significant number of product groups. Potential reasons pointed 
to in this fitness check are:  

  difficulties in implementing Article 6(6);  
 
  potential overlap with the Energy Label.  

lack of understanding of the EU Ecolabel’s role in different purchase decisions;  

In  general,  however,  the  EU  Ecolabel’s  dynamics  and  its  role  on  the  market  for  different 
types of products are little understood. 

Based on the limited data available the regulations can be considered  partly efficient when 
considering cost and effect in terms of their output e.g. the number of product group criteria 
and sectoral reference documents and the trustworthiness and credibility of the schemes. At 
the  level  of  the  Commission,  a  rough  estimate  of  the  average  annual  management  cost  (i.e. 
excluding  Human  Resource  costs)  at  EU  level  is  EUR  500 000  for  EMAS  and  EUR  1 100 
000 for the EU Ecolabel is considered relatively small; this maintains a system of 33 product 
groups, 2 000 licences and 44 000 products for the EU Ecolabel and 4 000 organisations and 
7 500 sites for EMAS. However there is no quantitative benefits data against which to weigh 
these costs.  

The  resources  invested  in  the  schemes  at  Member  State  level  vary  significantly,  with  some 
countries investing as little as EUR 3 000 annually in EMAS and others only investing EUR 
8 000 annually in the EU Ecolabel. This reflects both the schemes’ voluntary nature and the 
flexibility in implementation at Member State level, but it is also clear that the Regulations do 
not  constitute  a  burden  on  Member  States  beyond  what  they  may  consider  appropriate 
themselves. No estimation of benefits could be provided. 

However,  some  inefficiency  has  been  observed.  In  general,  the  barriers  to  effectiveness 
identified  in  the  fitness  check  shift  the  calculation  of  cost  and  benefits  done  by  potential 
applicants. Some of these barriers are the result of the need to ensure adequate reliability and 
trustworthiness.  Such  issues  may  be  difficult  to  characterise  as  inefficiencies  but  they  raise 
the  issue  of  how  to  strike  the  right  balance  between:  easy  uptake  by  producers  and  the 
trustworthiness needed for integration in public policies and for uptake by consumers. Other 
issues  point  more  towards  a  lack  of  strategic  direction  and  priority  setting  than  lack  of 
efficiency  in  the  work  being  done.  For  example,  resources  for  the  EU  Ecolabel  are  being 
invested in work on criteria for product groups where there is no uptake of the scheme. 

For EMAS, causes of inefficiency include: 

 

Issues  related  to  scheme  requirements  such  as  a  significant  number  of  site  visits, 
suboptimal  inspection  cycle  for  SMEs  and  the  necessity  to  draft  a  specific 
environmental statement. Also, the scheme’s operational interfaces (such as the use of 
national  and  EU  registers)  are  far  from  being  user-friendly.  If  these  issues  are 
addressed,  the  scheme  can  be  made  more  user-friendly  without  compromising  its 
quality  and  credibility.  EMAS  could  increase  efficiency  by  building  on  its  public 
nature  to  establish  systemic  trust  between  authorities,  organisations  and  verifiers.  In 
this way, authorities can reward the efforts of organisations based on the information 
checked  by  verifiers.  This  would  allow  for  further  integration  with  other  regulatory 
practices and open up the possibility of regulatory relief. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the EU Ecolabel, the main causes of inefficiencies are: 

  Article 6(6) on hazardous substances was found to be too onerous and consequently to 
have  been  a  significantly  limiting  factor  on  uptake  for  some  product  groups.  The 
criteria development suffers from inefficiencies and long procedures that try to adapt 
criteria  to  Article  6(6).  In  addition,  producers  still  generally  found  it  difficult  to 
comply with the criteria that were finally agreed. 

  Many consider the number of criteria for each product group to be too high. Although 
this  is  a  consequence  of  trying  to  ensure  environmental  excellence,  the  evaluation 
study found that excellence could also be maintained with fewer criteria. This would 
lead both to a leaner and more streamlined criteria development process and to easier 
and less costly compliance and verification by producers and competent bodies. 

A better evaluation of potential uptake before criteria are developed would ensure that the EU 
Ecolabel focuses efforts where the effects of uptake are greatest. This would contribute both 
to the general branding and awareness raising and make the scheme more effective.   

EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  are  broadly  coherent  with  the  current  policy  objectives  and 
intentions,  but  there  is  room  to  explore  further  synergies  with  EU  policies  including  the 
circular  economy  action  plan,  the  development  of  the  EU  strategy  for  a  non-toxic 
environment,  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive,  the  Public  Procurement  Directive 
and the IED as these could make better use of the opportunities provided by the EU Ecolabel 
and/or EMAS. With regards to possible discussions on an EU Ecolabel for food products this 
should take into consideration potential overlap with the Organic label. 

EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are coherent with each other. However, the development of EU 
Ecolabel  criteria  for  services  should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  potential  confusion  and 
synergy with EMAS. 

For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  an  overlap  exists  with  the  EU  Energy  Label  and  with  national  and 
regional ecolabels. Where such overlaps exist, inconsistencies may arise from different areas 
of  focus  (geographical  or  environmental)  even  though  harmonisation  in  methodology  and 
procedure has been attempted. Such inconsistencies may add to the confusion for consumers. 
A  specific  need  for  better  coherence  between  the  work-plans  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  the 
Energy  Label  has  been  identified.  For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  further  integration  of  the  use  of 
criteria  in  public  procurement  procedures  has  also  been  identified  as  insufficient  by  many 
stakeholders. 

For EMAS, coherence is not fully exploited because the scheme is not well integrated into the 
development,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  other  environmental  policies.  Pioneering 
exploitation  of  opportunities  for  regulatory  relief  has  been  successful,  for  instance  in 
connection  with  environmental  inspection  and  the  IED.  This  has  also  been  achieved  with 
limited  resources  and  without  amending  the  EMAS  Regulation.  However,  such  initiatives 
remain too limited. 

There is marked overlap with the revised ISO 14001 standard. ISO 14001 delivers a similar, 
but less ambitious, service and without the same potential for integration in the environmental 
policy  framework,  which  is  needed  to  achieve  synergies  and  efficiency  in  the  regulatory 
process. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Some of the main barriers to a more effective and efficient implementation of the Regulations 
remain in spite of attempts to address them in the latest amendments to the legislation and in 
spite  of  the  continuing  work  to  improve  the  policy  framework.  To  a  large  extend  this  is 
because  effectiveness  is  achieved  through  voluntary  measures  in  Member  States  and  by 
producers and organisations. 

The  Regulations  deliver  EU  Added  value  to  the  extent  that  it  provides  a  framework  that 
ensures harmonised rules and procedures across the internal market and give  credibility and 
transparency to environmental claims. The framework delivers information on and a common 
reference  for  environmental  performance  of  products  and  organisations  and  the  opportunity 
for  integration  and  streamlining  with  other  EU  policies.  In  this  way  the  framework  support 
producers  and  organisations  who  are  willing  to  go  beyond  mandatory  measures;  including 
especially SMEs who would not have the internal capacity to build the system by themselves. 

The value of this framework is also generally recognised by stakeholders. For instance  77% 
of the EU population surveyed for Eurobarometer indicate that they are willing to pay more 
for environmentally friendly products if they feel that the claims can be trusted; 79% of those 
surveyed  for  the  EU  Ecolabel  study  found  that  the  EU  Ecolabel  was  a  valuable  tool  to 
facilitate higher uptake and free circulation of green products across Europe while more than 
70 % of all surveyed for the EMAS study found that they improved or significantly improved 
performance on energy efficiency, use of materials, water consumption and waste production. 

However, the framework has not been attractive enough to create a drive for major uptake 
and a significant shift in the market and thus does not realise the full potential for its 
contribution to environmental benefits through sustainable consumption and production. Also 
ISO14001 provides an alternative to EMAS with harmonised rules and procedures for 
environmental management at global level but without providing the sectoral reference 
document guiding performances improvement as well as a compliance and reporting platform 
that has the capacity to trigger regulatory relief and decrease of administrative burden 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes  

1. Procedural information 

2. Information on stakeholder consultation 

3a. EMAS analytical model 

3b. EMAS and ISO: a schematic overview 

3c. Actions and measures taken by Member States in the context of the EMAS Regulation 

3d. EU Ecolabel analytical model 

4. Historical overview on EU Ecolabel product groups 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information on the preparation of the fitness check 

January 

2014 
2014  May-July 
2014 
September 
2014  October 
February 
2015 
2015  April 
2015  May 

Initiation of evaluation studies 
Consultation on questionnaires 
First Steering Group meeting: adoption of fitness check mandate 
Workshop on the Ecolabel and EMAS evaluation studies 
Consultation of the Steering Group on the EMAS evaluation study 
Consultation of Steering Group on the EU Ecolabel evaluation study 
Second Steering Group meeting: discussion of draft staff working 
document 

2015  November   Written consultation of the Steering Group on draft staff working 

2015  December 
2015  December 

2016 

January 

2016  March 
2016  April 

document 
Approval of evaluation studies 
Third Steering Group meeting: discussion of draft staff working 
document 
Fourth Steering Group meeting: discussion of draft staff working 
document; Consultation on quality assessment of evaluation studies 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
Consultation of the Steering Group 

A Steering Group for the EMAS and EU Ecolabel fitness check was established by open 
invitation to Commission departments. The following departments are represented by 
members of the Steering Group: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

the Directorate-General for the Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship & SMEs 
the Directorate-General for Human Resources 
the Directorate-General for Climate Action 
the Directorate-General for the Environment 
the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
the Secretariat-General 
the Joint Research Centre. 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board gave its opinion on 4 March 2016. The opinion was taken 
into account in and discussed with the Steering Group. The response is summarised below: 

1. The report should better explain the scope of the fitness check within the broader 
policy context and justify its limitations. It should clearly outline the coherence of the 
analysed schemes with other initiatives within the sustainable product policy 
framework. 

Main recommendations for improvements: The report should clarify the purpose of this 
report, its scope, and explain the broader policy context in relation to other initiatives within 
the sustainable product policy framework. In doing so, it should explain why it was decided 
to examine the EMAS and EU Ecolabel schemes together, and why other related initiatives 
were not included in the scope (such as mandatory ecodesign and energy labelling schemes or 
voluntary initiative on Green Public Procurement). The report should also explain and justify 
its limitations, compared with what is normally expected from a fitness check.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main response to opinion: 

  A more detailed description of the individual instruments in the SCP action plan has 

been included under section 3.1. 

  A new section on scope has been included as section 5.1. This section also explains 
and justifies the limits to this fitness check compared with what could be expected 
from mandatory legislation, focusing on a more limited set of environmental impacts 
that does not extend to the whole life cycle. 

2. The report should clarify how effective EMAS and EU Ecolabel have been in 
achieving the objectives of the Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) policy, 
separately and in synergy with other related schemes. 

Main recommendations for improvements: The report should better explain whether the 
schemes have actually been effective and if they have delivered the environmental and 
market benefits covered by the policy objectives, taking into account the limited uptake of the 
schemes. In particular, it should analyse in how far they have contributed to the achievement 
of the goals of the Sustainable Consumption and Production policy, separately and in synergy 
with other related schemes (not covered in this exercise). Regarding EMAS, the report should 
explain to which extent the targets mentioned in the impact assessment report accompanying 
the latest revision of the scheme were achieved. Furthermore, it should better assess the 
effectiveness of EU Ecolabel criteria and whether the target of representing the best 10-20% 
performing products was reached. 

Main response to opinion: 

  Section 5.1. on scope explains the scope of the fitness check. 
  A new section 7.2.8. reflecting the effectiveness of the SCP action plan as a whole has 

been included. 

  Section 7.4.1. has been included on coherence between the different parts of the SCP 

action plan. 

  The conclusions on EMAS targets and the environmental performance of EU 

Ecolabel criteria have been strengthened. 

3. The fitness check should better demonstrate how efficient the schemes have been, 
including through a more robust analysis of actual impacts (benefits and costs). In 
particular, as the fitness check is conducted under the REFIT programme, the report 
should more clearly bring out the impacts on SMEs and highlight (and quantify 
wherever possible) the potential for simplification and burden reduction of the schemes. 

Main recommendations for improvements: The report should clarify if the schemes have 
been efficient in achieving their objectives, looking at the net impacts, i.e. comparing the 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
costs and benefits of the schemes. Moreover, being part of the REFIT programme, the report 
should better analyse whether the interventions are fit for purpose, what the costs and 
administrative burdens are for SMEs, what the cumulative impacts are of the two 
Regulations, and what is the potential for simplification/burden reduction of the schemes (as 
far as possible in quantitative terms). 

Main response to opinion: 

 

 

 

Section 5.3 has been updated to make it clearer why it is not possible to calculate net 
impacts and cumulative impacts. 
The conclusion has been strengthened to better answer whether or not the interventions 
are achieving their objectives (this is not considered an efficiency issue, but rather the 
purpose of the combined evaluation). 
The relationship between barriers and simplification/burden relief has been 
strengthened in section 7.3.2. However, since the report remains focused on 
retrospective elements, it does not address future potential. 

4. The report should clarify what is the EU added value of the schemes, and how they 
compare with similar schemes such as ISO or national schemes. 

Main recommendations for improvements: The report should explain in more depth the 
EU added value of the schemes, using more conclusive arguments to support their validity 
and relevance, illustrated by anecdotal evidence and stakeholders views. It should describe 
how the schemes support and complement measures taken at national and international 
levels. The EU Ecolabel's added value over other labelling schemes should be clarified, given 
that the scheme has been taken up primarily in those Member States that have national 
ecolabelling schemes. Also, given the failure to improve the market uptake of EMAS and the 
existence of ISO 14001, the report should provide a more credible analysis of its added value.  

Main response to opinion: 

  Section 7.5.1 is focused on stakeholder views. 
  The fitness check emphasises that it is not so that the EU Ecolabel is primarily taken 
up in countries where national labels already exist. In fact, the existence of national 
labels does not in itself cause lower uptake. Added value comes from harmonisation 
on the internal market. 

  More detail has been provided under section 7.5.2 on the EU Ecolabel’s role in 
relation to other labelling schemes and EMAS’s role in relation to ISO 14001. 

5. The conclusions in the report should be more nuanced and reflect the analysis in the 
main body of the report. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main recommendations for improvements: The conclusions in the report should be more 
nuanced and reflect the analysis in the main body of the report. They should reply clearly to 
the evaluation questions and be systematically backed up with evidence or stakeholders' 
views. Given the acknowledged limited availability of data, the report should explain how 
robust the conclusions are and what mechanism could be put in place to bridge the data gaps 
for future reviews. The report should clearly bring out the main conclusions regarding the key 
REFIT objectives, what lessons can be drawn for a possible future revision of the framework 
and what will be the follow up to this fitness check.  

6. Procedure and presentation:  
The summary boxes and the conclusion section should be coherent with the analysis provided 
in the main body of the report. Attention should be given to clearer drafting in order to avoid 
contradictions in the report, while mentioning explicitly any data limitations and data sources. 

Main response to opinion: 

  Section and chapter summaries have been tightened up and the link to the final 

conclusions and the evaluation questions strengthened. 

  Section 6.2. on monitoring has been strengthened to address mechanisms to bridge 

data gaps. 

  Section 5.1. on scope has been added to clarify that the staff working document is 
retrospective and that lessons for a possible future revision and potential follow up 
activities will not be addressed here. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Both  evaluation  studies  used  the  results  of  extensive  stakeholder  consultations  conducted 
through online questionnaires, face-to-face and phone interviews and stakeholder workshops. 

The online questionnaires were distributed in summer 2014. 

The EU Ecolabel 

Stakeholders  were  consulted  through  an  online  consultation.  A  total  of  364  responses  were 
received. The composition of the survey sample is set out below: 

Table 1: Distribution of survey sample by type of stakeholder 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Distribution of survey sample by country 

Interviews: 

Interviews were carried out in the six selected focus countries: 

  Denmark and Italy were chosen to represent countries with a relatively high uptake; 
  Germany  and  the  Czech  Republic  was  chosen  to  represent  countries  with  a  medium 

 

uptake; 
the  United  Kingdom  and  Poland  were  chosen  to  represent  countries  with  lower 
uptake. 

The  selection  also  took  into  account  the  need  to  address  countries  with  strong  national 
ecolabels  (e.g.  Blue  Angel  in  Germany)  or  regional  ecolabels  (the  Nordic  ‘Swan’  Ecolabel 
that Denmark shares with the other Nordic countries). 

Key stakeholders consulted through interviews include: 

retailers 

 
licence holders 
  non-licence holders 
  SMEs 
 
  competent bodies 
  government bodies 
  consumer organisations 
 

trade bodies and associations. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EMAS 

Online consultation for organisations 

Organisations  were  consulted  via  an  online  consultation.  A  total  of  467  responses  to  the 
online questionnaire were submitted by organisations. The following tables present the survey 
sample. 

Table 2: Response rate by country and EMAS population 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Response rate by organisational size 

Table 4: Distribution of survey sample by turnover 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5: Distribution of survey sample by length of registration 

Table 6: Distribution of response rate for leading industrial sectors 

Table 7: Distribution of response rate for leading service sectors 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Questionnaire for Member States 

A questionnaire was sent to Member States. A total of 20 complete responses were received. 

Figure 2: Distribution of responses from Member States by number of registrations 

Interviews: 

A  series  of  interviews  were  conducted  to  obtain  further  information  and  a  better 
understanding. 

Table 8: Distribution of interviewees: 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Workshop: 

EMAS experts participated in a workshop on 22 October 2014. Attendees included: 

  environmental verifiers 
  competent bodies 
  European policy-makers 
 
 
  people involved in implementing environmental management systems within their 

representatives of EMAS clubs 
representatives of civil society 

organisations. 

The main aims of the workshop were to discuss the findings of the ex post analysis and to 
collect ideas and input for the ex ante analysis on the future of EMAS. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3a: EMAS analytical model 

Regulatory activities (input) 

Intended function/objective                         

Voluntary actions 

Effects (output) 

EMAS Committee 
Forum of Competent Bodies, Forum of 
Accreditation and Licensing Bodies 

  Ensure regulatory function 
 Ensure knowledge sharing, coordination harmonisation of 

procedures and development of strategic activities 

Environmental review requirements 
(Annex 1) 

Ensure attention to the relevant direct and indirect 
environmental effects and to relevant legislation 

Perform an environmental review 
identifying significant impacts 

Environmental management system 
(EMS) 

EMS requirement framework — 
ISO+ (Annex 2) 

Internal audit requirements 
(Annex 3) 

Sectoral reference documents 
documents (SRDs) 

Environmental reporting 
requirements (Annex 4 — 
Environmental statement ) 

Verifier 

Accreditation body 

Competent bodies 

Member States and the European 
Commission 

 Ensure commitment to continual improvement of 

environmental performances (policy and objective). 
 Ensure development of an appropriate implementation 

plan 

 Ensure legal compliance 
 Ensure employee participation 
 Ensure access to information and open and transparent 

dialogue 

 Ensure appropriate monitoring and review of activities 
 Evaluate compliance and performances against objectives 

and take appropriate corrective actions 
Establish indicators and best practices for specific sectors 

 Ensure standards for environmental reporting 
 Ensure reporting of six key environmental indicators 
 Ensure reporting on performance against legal provisions 
 Ensure openness, transparency and public availability of 

data 

Ensure impartial verification of: 
 Compliance with regulation and environmental legislations 
 Improvements, reliability and correctness of EMS 
 Environmental statement 

  Establish procedures and perform registration 
  Maintain a register and report to the Commission 
  Ensure availability of environmental reporting 

  Provide assistance to organisation (via competent 

body/Helpdesk) 

  Ensure promotion and information 
  Take EMAS into account in the development, application 

and enforcement of legislation 

  Facilitate uptake through cluster approach, regulatory 

relief and inclusion for better regulation 
  Take action in the event of non-compliance 

  Develop appropriate policies and 

commitments 

  Develop operational planning and 

implementation 

  Perform required actions 
  Perform internal audits 
  Develop and implement corrective 
actions and new commitments 

  Develop and implement 
communication activities 

  Take sectoral indicators and best 

practices into account 

  Develop and make available an 

environmental statement including 
specific indicators 

  Use environmental statement and 

EMAS to credibly improve 
organisation image 

Is there coherence in implementation across the EU? 

  Organisations have identified the most significant impacts 
and take the most appropriate measures to improve 
performances? 

  Organisations achieve environmental benefits? 
  Employees are involved? 
  Monitoring and review activities are being performed? 
  Appropriate corrective measures are taken? 
  New commitments ensure continuous improvements? 
  Communication activities are developed and reflect the 
outcomes of management system implementation? 

  SRDs are taken into account to further improve 
performances and report on sectoral indicators? 

 Requirements for environmental reporting are met? 
 Reporting is done on key environmental indicators? 
 Reports contain information on legal compliance? 
 Environmental statements are made publicly available? 
 EMAS and environmental statements are used to promote 

organisation image? 

Verification of compliance with regulation, legal 
requirements, EMS reliability, improvements and reporting 
correctness is impartial and guarantees credibility? 

  Registration is done in accordance with the Regulation? 
 

Information on legal compliance reaches local authorities? 

 

 

Implement information and 
promotion strategy 
Include EMAS in development of 
environmental legislation and 
policies 

94 

  Deliver regulatory relief and better 

regulation based on EMAS 
registration 

Is there uptake of EMAS? 

 
  Assistance and information for organisations is available? 
  Promotional activities are being performed? 
  EMAS is taken into account with regard to other 

legislation? 

  Regulatory relief and other better regulation measures are 

being delivered to EMAS-registered organisations? 

 
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note: The analytical model as described in this Annex was developed for use in this fitness 
check on the basis of the Regulation. The intention is not to give a comprehensive account of 
all the functions established by the Regulation but to:  

  give  the  reader  a  general  overview  and  understanding  of  the  scheme  and  how  it 

works; 

  map the schemes’ different objectives and how they are connected to specific actions.  

The  model  complements  the  intervention  logic  presented  in  this  paper.  References  are  to 
articles and annexes in the Regulation. 

The main regulatory pillars in the EMAS intervention logic 

The  EMAS  Regulation  sets  out  a  common  EU  framework  to  help  and  encourage 
organisations participating voluntarily in the EMAS scheme to improve their environmental 
performance.  Under  the  scheme,  organisations  put  in  place  an  environmental  management 
and  audit  system,  commit  to  continuous  environmental  improvements  and  report  on  those 
improvements in an open and transparent manner. 

High-level coordination 

The EMAS Committee, the Forum of Competent Bodies and the Forum of Accreditation and 
Licensing Bodies were set up under the Regulation. Their goals are: 

  high-level coordination and harmonisation of procedures; 
  knowledge sharing; 
  development of strategic activities; 
  ensuring that implementation happens in accordance with the Regulation. 

The  EMAS  Committee  (Article  49)  was  set  up  in  accordance  with  Article  5  of  Decision 
1999/468/EC  on  regulatory  procedure  i.e.  it  has  a  scrutiny  committee  composed  of 
representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission. 

The  Forum  of  Competent  Bodies  (Article  16)  is  composed  of  representatives  of  the 
competent  bodies  of  each  Member  State.  Its  role  is  to  develop  guidance  to  ensure  that 
procedures are consistent. 

The  Forum  of  Accreditation  and  Licensing  Bodies  (Article  29)  is  constituted  of  all  the 
accreditation  and  licensing  bodies  from  all  Member  States.  Its  role  is  to  ensure  that 
accreditation-related procedures are consistent and to supervise verifiers. 

Implementation: institutional set-up 

Under Article 11 of the Regulation, each Member State has to designate a competent body 
responsible for registration of organisations, for maintaining a register, reporting to the 
Commission and ensuring availability of environmental reporting. The competent body must 
be independent and neutral. 

The  national  accreditation  body  or  licensing  body  (Article  2)  is  the  body  appointed  in 
accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  765/2008  (Articles  4  and  5(2)).  It  is  responsible  for 
accreditation and supervision of the environmental verifiers. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental  verifiers  (Chapter  V)  are  responsible  for  impartially  verifying  that 
organisations  implement  the  EMAS  correctly  and  for  the  reliability  of  the  reporting  (in  the 
environmental  statement),  including  on  organisations’  performance,  indicators  and  legal 
compliance. 

The role of Member States and the European Commission  (Chapters VII and VIII) is to 
support  the  implementation  of  the  scheme  by  ensuring  that  assistance  can  be  provided  to 
organisations that want to apply for EMAS certification. Assistance is provided through  the 
competent bodies and through the establishment of a helpdesk. The Member States and the 
European  Commission  are  also  responsible  for  increasing  scheme  awareness  and  making  it 
more  attractive  for  organisations.  This  is  to  be  achieved  through:  performing  promotional 
activities, exploring options on regulatory relief and integrating EMAS into the development 
and enforcement of other policies and legislation. 

The ‘obligations’ of the organisations 

Any  organisation  can  apply  for  EMAS  certification.  EMAS  certification  is  granted  on 
condition  that  an  independent  verifier  can  establish  that  the  organisation  complies  with  the 
Regulation. To do that, the organisation will need to perform an environmental review. 

The  objective  of  the  environmental  review  is  to  ensure  that  the  relevant  direct  and  indirect 
environmental impacts are considered. The requirement for an environmental review is set 
out in Annex 1 to the Regulation. 

On  the  basis  of  the  environmental  review,  the  organisation  will  need  to  develop  an 
appropriate  environmental  management  system  (EMS).  The  management  system  should 
include: 

  development of appropriate policies and commitments; 
  development of a plan of implementation and a set of required actions; 
  development of an internal audit system; 
  development and implementation of corrective actions and new commitments; 
  development of communication activities. 

The  requirements  on the  implementation of  the EMS, including the  internal  audit, are 
set out in Annex 2 (which incorporates a reference to the ISO 14001 standard as basis for the 
EMAS) and Annex 3 (internal audit) to the Regulation. 

SRDs are developed by the Commission to further facilitate performance improvement and 
reporting  in  specific  sectors,  in  cooperation  with  stakeholders.  They  are  proposed  for 
adoption  as  Commission  decisions  after  a  vote  in  the  EMAS  Committee.  Once  the 
environmental  review is  done,  an  SRD  can  help  an  organisation  to  produce  the  appropriate 
policies and commitments by pointing to indicators and best practices within that sector. 

Before  first  registration  and  before  every  registration  renewal  (every  three  years),  the 
organisation implements policies and actions and performs an internal audit. The organisation 
is then required to write an environmental statement on its performance. 

The  reporting  requirements  are  laid  down  in  Annex  4  to  the  Regulation.  The  reporting 
requirements are intended: 

 
 
 

to ensure that standards for environmental reporting are maintained; 
to ensure that reporting is done based on a set of core indicators; 
to ensure openness and transparency. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
It  follows  from  the  last  point  that  the  environmental  statement  should  be  shared  with 
competent bodies and made publicly available. As part of this reporting, the organisation will 
also  need  to  report  on its  compliance  with  other  environmental  legislation  relevant  to  it.  In 
addition,  the  organisation  can  use  the  environmental  statement  to  improve  its  image  in  a 
credible manner and to validate its efforts in business-to-business transactions and in public 
procurement. 

Obtaining EMAS certification 

Once the environmental statement has been drawn up, it is sent to the environmental verifier 
for  verification.  The  verifier  ensures  that  the  information  is  correct  and  reliable  and  in 
compliance  with  the  Regulation.  Once  verified,  the  environmental  statement  is  forwarded, 
together  with  the  verifier’s  declaration  on  verification  (Annex  7),  to  the  competent  body, 
which handles the final registration and awards the licence. 

Support activities 

Under the Regulation (in Articles 12(1)(a) and 13(2)(c)), before a competent body registers 
an organisation, it should consider observations from enforcement authorities to confirm that 
there is no evidence of breach of applicable legal requirements. The authorities can use the 
verification  of  legal  compliance  by  an  accredited  verifier,  the  additional  check  by 
infringement  authorities  and  the  transparent  reporting  obligation  (environmental  statement 
signed  off  by  the  competent  body)  to  determine  whether  reductions  in  administrative 
burdens  or  regulatory  relief  (e.g.  fewer  inspections)  can  be  integrated  into  the 
administration  of  environmental  policies  and  if  EMAS-registered  companies  can  be  given 
special benefits, as referred to in the Regulation (Article 38(2)). 

Member States and the Commission are also obliged to perform promotional activities to 
increase awareness about the potential and benefits of being EMAS registered (Articles 33-
36). These activities can support promotional work done by the organisations themselves. 

Finally, the Regulation requires Member States to consider how the EMAS registration can 
be taken into account when developing new legislation, how it can be used as a tool in the 
application and enforcement of legislation and how it can be taken into account in public 
procurement and purchasing (Article 38(1)) 

The EMAS cycle 

In order to maintain its EMAS certification, an organisation needs to continuously commit to 
and improve its environmental performance. Therefore, in order to  ensure the credibility of 
the  scheme,  the  procedure  described  above  is  repeated  every  three  years.  However,  the 
organisation  should  carry  out  internal  audits  of  its  environmental  performance  and 
compliance with legal requirements in the intervening years and in accordance with its audit 
programme.  The  environmental  statement  should  also  be  updated,  validated  and  sent  to 
competent body on a yearly basis. 

The fitness check 

The role of the fitness check is to check whether the Regulation is fit for purpose. The fitness 
check assesses the Regulation’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added 
value. For the purpose of this fitness check, the main effects are considered to be: 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. that EMAS-registered organisations achieve environmental benefits; 

2. there is uptake of EMAS-registered organisations. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3b: EMAS and ISO: a schematic overview 

This Annex is intended to provide an overview of the differences between EMAS and the 
ISO 14001 global environmental management scheme before and after revision. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3c: Analysis of actions and measures taken by Member States based on the 
minutes of the EMAS Committee 

Member States are requested to report on activities that have been undertaken to assure the 
implementation  of  EMAS  and  promote  the  scheme.  The  EMAS  helpdesk  conducted  an 
analysis of this reporting covering the year 2010 to 2015 in the context of the publication of 
the "EMAS Compendium 2015 on the EMAS promotion and policy support in the Member 
States"77. 

This analysis based on formal reporting complements the analysis made in the context of the 
EMAS evaluation and based on a survey.  

Actions and measures requested by the Regulation  

Following the last revisions the Chapter VII and VIII of the EMAS Regulations (Articles 32 
to  41)  defines  the  measures  that  should  be  taken  by  Members  States.  Many  measures 
envisaged  by  those  chapters  are  a  direct  result  of  the  last  revision  aim  to  raise  the 
attractiveness of the scheme for participating organisations.  

  Provide  assistance  to  organisations  relating  to  compliance  with  legal  requirements 

relating to the environment (article 32) 

  Promotion of EMAS (article 33) through specific measures such as:  

o  Provide  information  about  EMAS  to  the  public  and  to  the  organisations  through 
use  professional  publications,  local  journals,  promotion  campaigns  or  any  other 
functional  means  to  increase  general  awareness  of  EMAS  and  cooperation  with 
industry and consumer associations. (article 34) 

o  Carry  out  promotional  activities  including  promotion  of  best  practices,  the 
development  of  tools  or    technical  support  and  the  encouragement  of  partnerships 
(article 35) 

o 

o  Promotion of  participation of  small organisation inter alia by facilitating access 
to  funding,  assuring  registration  fees  are  reasonable  and  promoting  technical 
assistance. (article 36) 
 Encouragement  of  participation  through  clusters  and  through    step-by  step 
approach (article 37) 
Integrate  EMAS  with  other  policies  and  instruments  in  the  Community  (article 
38):  

o 

  Taking  EMAS  into  account  in  the  development  of  new  legislation  use 
EMAS as a tool in the application and enforcement of legislation and take 
EMAS into account in public procurement and purchasing. 

  Take  measure 

that 

trigger  organisation  registration  such  as 

the 
development  of  regulatory  relief  (organisation  considered  compliant 
with  requirements  of  other  legal  instruments)  and  application  of  better 
regulation  (modification  of  other  legal  instrument  to  remove  burdens  on 
organisations participating in EMAS) 

77 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/EMAS-Compendium.2015.Online.pdf. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Actions and measures undertaken by Member States  

When  analysing  the  activities  reported  by  the  Members  States  in  the  context  of  the  EMAS 
Committee during the last 5 years78 a wide variety appear. However those measures can be 
clustered  into  four  categories:  legal  measures,  financial  measures,  informational  measures 
and marketing or promotional measures.  

It appear clearly that the two last categories of measures are by far the most widely applied 
by Member States : information and marketing measures are applied by 86% and 83% of the 
Member  States  while  legal  measures  (45%  )  and  financial  measures  (55%)  are  less  often 
proposed. 

Strong  discrepancies  also  exist  among  the  different  specific  measures  as  visualised  in  the 
chart  below.  Measures  such  as  Regulatory  Relief  (28%)  or  Tax  Rebates  (17%)  which  are 
delivering structural and tangible benefits to registered organisations are much less frequent 
than mainstream informational or promotional measures such as website maintenance (52%) 
organisation of seminars (62%) or the publication of brochure and leaflets (52%). Moreover 
among  the  promotional  and  informational  measure,  a  vast  majority  targets  the  EMAS 
registered  organisation  and  does  not  address  market  and  stakeholder  recognition  (measures 
addressing a broader audience such as advertisement (14%), video (10%), social media (7%) 
and even sectoral promotion campaign (24%) reach very   low percentage).  

It  is  also  striking  to  realise  that  the  most  popular  measure  (production  of  leaflet,  brochure, 
etc…) are  reported  by 62%  of  the  Member  States  only  and  that  about  50%  of  the Member 
States do not report taking any Legal of Financial measures. 
Likewise  it  should  be  noted  that  measures  related  to  cluster  of  organisation,  although 
specifically  requested  by  the  regulation  is  almost  absent  (according  to  the  reporting  this 
measure has been implemented by 2 member states in the period investigated).  

This analysis confirmed the organisations' feedback mentioning a lack of measures that raise 
the  benefits  of  EMAS  for  organisations  and  that  raise  awareness  of  EMAS  among 
stakeholder, driving market recognition.  

78 On every EMAS Committee the Member States report on activities that have been undertaken to promote 
the scheme. The EMAS helpdesk conducted an analysis of this reporting covering the year 2010 to 2015 in the 
context of the publication of the "EMAS Compendium 2015 on the EMAS promotion and policy support in the 
Member States". 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Percentage of Member States reporting  EMAS support instruments,  
2010-2015 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

The  evaluation  study  did  not  identify  a  direct  correlation  between  the  number  of  activities 
reported  by  Member  States  in  the  context  of  the  survey  and  recent  trends  in  registration.79 
However,  a  more  complete  analysis  of  this  correlation  can  be  conducted  based  on  the 
measures officially reported by Member States (see excel table below summarising the type 
of measures taken by every Member State). 

Since three Member States (Germany, Italy, Spain) clearly over perform the others in term of 
number of registrations we tried to identify the common measures taken by this "top 3" and 
verify to which extend those measures were unique or also taken by other Member States:  

Analysing the type of measures taken leads to the following findings:  
  All  top  3  countries  provide  EMAS  organisation  with  regulatory  relief  (on  a  total  of  8 

countries providing it). 

  All  top  3  countries  provide  EMAS  organisation  with  tax  reduction  of  exemption  (on  a 

total of 5 countries providing it). 

79 The reasons for this apparent disconnection could be the following:  

o  Effectiveness of a measure is probably more important that the number of measures. 
o  As mentioned in the evaluation study, the targeting of the measure is important. Measures which give EMAS priority 
over other environmental management instruments are by far more effective in term of stimulating registration 
uptake.  

o  Member State track record shall be considered (budget evolution, number of registration in 2010, existing structural 

measures taken in the past and still in place, etc..) 

o  Other factors influencing registrations such as pre-existing awareness of EMAS, internal organisation and 

responsiveness of competent bodies, economic climates etc. also play an important role. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  All  top  3  countries  provide  EMAS  organisation  with  fee  reduction  on  inspection  and 

permits (on a total of 5 countries providing it). 

  Top 3 countries are almost the only countries (3 out of 6) to propose marketing initiatives 
going  beyond  brochure  and  leaflet  such  as  advertising,  video,  social  media,  or  even 
newsletter.  Same can be said about the organisation of national EMAS Awards.  

  2 of the top 3 countries have undertaken initiatives involving cluster of organisations (on 

a total of 2 countries proposing this kind of initiative). 

This  confirms  that  countries  with  higher  registration  numbers  undertake  specific  activities 
and that those activities are in line with those considered by EMAS-registered organisations 
as the most needed.   

Number and type of measure taken by every Member State (2010-2015) 

103 

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicGermanyDenmarkEstoniaSpainFinlandFranceGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLithuaniaLuxemburgLatviaMaltaNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSwedenSloveniaSlovak RepublicUnited KingdomTotalLEGAL11111111111111345%Regulatory relief11111111828%public procurement1111414%integration in government frameworks or strategies111111111111138%ECONOMIC11111111111111111655%tax reductions or exemptions11111517%fee reductions for inspections or permits11111517%funding for EMS implementation or 11111111111034%investment rebate for environmental 1127%waived or reduced EMAS registration fee11111517%INFORMATION11111111111111111111111112586%Guidebooks/-lines 11111111111111345%Reports or scientific articles11111111828%all1111111111111111111862%Seminars11111111111034%Workshops11111111111034%Training Courses 11111111828%Lectures / Presentations at Conferences11111111828%(National) EMAS website1111111111111111552%(National) EMAS Register or database1111111724%PROMOTION 1111111111111111111111112483%EVENTSNational EMAS Conference or EMAS Day111111621%(National) EMAS Awards1111414%Participation in Conferences111111111931%Stakeholder Dialogue / Roundtable/meetings with industry1111111111111111552%Bi-/multilateral cooperation111111111111111448%Sectoral Promotion Campaigns1111111724%PROMOTIONAL MATERIALBrochures, factsheets, leaflets, flyers, posters and other promotional material1111111111111111552%Advertisement1111414%Social Media1127%Newsletter111310%Video111310%Cluster initiatives1127%TOTAL15149130525810278131177242407291912151711411309 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3d: Analytical model EU Ecolabel 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Note: The intervention logic as described in this Annex was developed for use in this fitness 
check on the basis of the Regulation. The intention is not to give a comprehensive account of 
all the functions established by the Regulation but to give the reader a general overview and 
understanding of the scheme and how it works. References are to articles and annexes in the 
Regulation. 

The main regulatory pillars in the EU Ecolabel intervention logic 

The EU Ecolabel Regulation sets out a common EU framework that helps and encourages 
producers and service providers participating voluntarily in the scheme to use the EU 
Ecolabel to promote their products/services with high environmental performance, provided 
that they fulfil the criteria set for them. EU Ecolabel criteria include requirements on 
environmental performance and on fitness for use. 

High-level coordination 

The European Union Ecolabelling Board (EUEB) (Article 5) was set up to contribute to 
the development and revision of EU Ecolabel criteria and functions as a way of coordinating 
and ensuring consistency in criteria development. The Regulation stipulates that the EUEB 
should consist of representatives of competent bodies in each Member State and should 
observe a balanced participation of all relevant interested parties for each product group (e.g. 
producers, manufactures, importers, service providers, wholesalers, retailers, SMEs, 
environmental protection groups and consumer organisations). 

A Working Group of Competent Bodies or Competent Body Forum has been established to 
ensure high level coordination and knowledge sharing between Competent Bodies and that 
the implementation happens in accordance with the Regulation (Art. 13).  In practice – 
because the Regulation has been implemented differently in Member States (e.g. with 
different degrees of centralisation/decentralisation or division/sharing of responsibilities) as 
allowed under Article 4 of the regulation – the Competent Body Forum works mostly to 
ensure coherence and knowledge sharing with regard to national implementation; whereas the 
EUEB is the main forum for coordination on criteria development and more strategic issues. 

Selection of product groups for criteria development 

Following consultation of the EUEB, the Commission, Member States, competent bodies or 
other stakeholders may start developing or revising EU Ecolabel criteria. A working plan, 
including a strategy and a non-exhaustive list of product groups, should be agreed between 
the Commission and the EUEB and regularly updated (Article 7). 

Key requirements for EU Ecolabel criteria 

The role of the criteria development process is to ensure that products that will eventually be 
awarded the EU Ecolabel have an "excellent" environmental performance. The term 
"excellent" is indicatively defined as the best 10-20% of the products available on the 
Community market in terms of environmental performance at the time of adoption (Annex 1).  

Criteria shall be based on the environmental performance of products, taking into account the 
latest strategic objectives of the Community. Criteria shall be determined on a scientific basis 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and take into account the most significant environmental impacts over the products' life cycle 
as well as a series of specific issues including among others  the potential to reduce 
environmental impacts due to lack of durability and reusability of products (Article 6.1, 6.3a 
and 6.3c).  

The EU Ecolabel may not be awarded to goods containing substances or preparations/mixtures 
of meeting the criteria for classification as toxic, hazardous to the environment, carciogenic 
mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and 
packaging of substances and mixtures, nor to goods containing substances referred to in Article 57 
of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of18 December 
2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 
(REACH).  

Although for specific categories of goods containing substances and only in the event that it is 
not technically feasible to substitute them as such, or via the use of alternative materials or designs, 
or in the case of products which have a significantly higher overall environment performance 
compared with other goods of the same category, the Commission may adopt measures to grant 
derogations. No derogation shall be given concerning substances that meet the criteria of 
Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and that are identified according to the 
procedure described in Article 59(1) of that Regulation, present in mixtures, in an article or in 
any homogeneous part of a complex article in concentrations higher than 0,1 % (weight by 
weight) (Article 6.6 and 6.7). 

The criteria development process 

Member States, competent bodies or other stakeholders may develop criteria if they can 
demonstrate sufficient expertise (Article 7(1)). However, in practice, since the last revision of 
the Regulation, the criteria development process has been led by the Commission, except in 
one case, that of converted paper products. In order to ensure sufficient scientific staff and 
expertise, the technical work has been contracted to the European Commission’s in-house 
science service (JRC) under the supervision of the European Commission’s Directorate-
General for the Environment. 

The EUEB is set up to advice and contribute to the development of criteria (Art 5) and should 
be regularly consulted. In addition at least two Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) meetings 
shall be held on draft criteria; to these meeting all interested parties shall be invited, and the 
Commission should participate (Annex 1). 

Final adoption of criteria should happen according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny 
as provided for in Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC. For this the Commission shall be 
assisted by a Regulatory Committee (Art. 16) 

If criteria have already been developed by another scheme complying with the ISO type 1 
requirements a shortened procedure can be applied that includes and open consultation of 
suggested criteria. In case no Member State request an open working group meeting 
(AHWH) the criteria can be adopted (Annex 1) 

Administrating criteria 

Each Member State shall designate a Competent Body or bodies responsible for carrying 
out the verification of product compliance process in a consistent, neutral and reliable manner 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
by a party independent from the operator being verified. The composition of the competent 
bodies shall be such as to guarantee their independence and neutrality and their procedures 
should ensure transparency in the conduct of their activities (Art 4). It is the Competent Body 
who awards the EU Ecolabel and ensures that responsible for carrying out the task identified 
by the EU Ecolabel Regulation – such as implementing a fee reduction for SMEs. 

Competent Bodies should also perform market surveillance and control the use of the EU 
Ecolabel to ensure that no false or misleading claim that could lead to confusion with the EU 
Ecolabel is being performed (Art. 10) 

Obtaining the EU Ecolabel 

The EU Ecolabel can be obtained by any producer provided that their product lives up to the 
criteria defined for the relevant product group. The requirement on criteria to reflect 
environmental excellence effectively means that the EU Ecolabel is only available for a 
minority of producers. 

To obtain the EU Ecolabel the producer will have to apply for a licence to the Competent 
Body. In order for the Competent Body to be able to verify that the product (or products – a 
licence can cover more than one product) comply with the criteria requirements the producers 
needs to provide the required evidence. Once the Competent Body has verified compliance 
the right to use the EU Ecolabel can be awarded. The rules for awarding the EU Ecolabel is 
set out in Article 9 of the EU Regulation.  

The producer can then choose to commercial his products with the EU Ecolabel ensuring that 
the product remains in compliance with the criteria set for the product group.  

Supporting activities 

Member States and the Commission in cooperation with the EUEB agree on an action plan to 
promote the use of the EU Ecolabel. Member States should also encourage the use of targets 
to meet EU Ecolabel criteria when purchasing products (Art 12) 

The fitness check 

The role of the fitness is to check whether the Regulation is fit for purpose. The fitness check 
assesses the Regulation’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value. 
For the purpose of this fitness check, the main intended effects are considered to be: 

1. adequate environmental performance is achieved by EU-ecolabelled products; 

2. uptake of the EU Ecolabel among producers. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Historical overview of EU Ecolabel product groups 

Table 1 — Number of product groups in place 

Year 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 

Number of valid product group criteria 
2 
3 
5 
6 
5 
9 
13 
13 
17 
19 
20 
20 
22 
22 
24 
25 
26 
26 
25 
27 
33 
38 
33 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Number of revisions and extensions 

Product group 

Number of extensions 

Number of revisions 

First adoption 

Soaps and shampoos 
Rinse-off cosmetics 
Absorbent hygiene products 
All-purpose cleaners and sanitary 
cleaners 
Detergents for dishwashers 

Hand dishwashing detergents 

Laundry detergents 
Industrial & institutional laundry 
detergents 
Industrial & institutional 
automatic dishwashers detergents 
Textile products 
Footwear 
Indoor paints and varnishes 
Outdoor paint and varnishes 
Indoor paints and outdoor paints 
and varnishes 
Imaging equipment 
Personal computers 
Notebook computers 
Televisions 
Wooden floor coverings 
Textile floor coverings 
Hard coverings 
Wooden furniture 
Soil improvers 
Growing media 
Soil improvers and growing 
media 
Soil improvers, growing media 
and mulch 
Single-ended light bulbs 
Double-ended light bulbs 
Light bulbs 
Light sources 
Heat pumps 
Water-based heaters 
Dishwashers 
Refrigerators 
Washing machines 
Bed mattresses 
Sanitary tapware 
Flushing toilets and urinals 
Lubricants 
Copying and graphic paper 
Newsprint 
Tissue paper 
Printed paper 
Converted paper 
Campsite services 
Tourist accommodation 

4 
0 
0 
2 

4 
3 
3 
0 

0 

4 
5 
4 
2 
0 

0 
4 
4 
6 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
3 
1 

0 

0 
0 
4 
2 
4 
0 
4 
2 
3 
3 
0 
0 
2 
4 
1 
7 
1 
0 
3 
2 

In place 2015 

1 
0 
0 
2 

2 
2 
2 
0 

0 

3 
2 
3 
0 
0 

0 
2 
2 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
2 
3 
0 
0 
1 
3 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2007 
2014 
2014 
2001 

1998 
2001 
1999 
2012 

2012 

1999 
1999 
1995 
2008 
2014 

2013 
2001 
2001 
2002 
2009 
2009 
2002 
2009 
1994 
2007 
2001 

2015 

1995 
1996 
1999 
2011 
2007 
2014 
1993 
1999 
1993 
1998 
2013 
2013 
2005 
1999 
2012 
1998 
2012 
2014 
2005 
2003 

109