REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the review of implementation of Regulation (EC)No 122/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 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  COM(2017) 355 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the review of implementation of Regulation (EC)No 122/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 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  {SWD(2017) 252 final} {SWD(2017) 253 final}  
 
 
1. Purpose of the report 

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.  Both  were  re-
launched  as  part  of  the  Communication  on  sustainable  consumption  and  production  and  the 
sustainable industrial policy action plan (SCP action plan)1 in 2008. The objective for the EU 
Ecolabel 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  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.’ 

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel2 (the EU Ecolabel Regulation) 
requires the  Commission  to  submit to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  a report  on 
the implementation of the EU Ecolabel scheme, and also to identify elements for a possible 
review of the scheme. 

Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations 
in  a  Community  eco-management  and  audit  scheme  (EMAS) 3  (the  EMAS  Regulation) 
requires  the  Commission  to  submit  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  a  report 
containing information on the actions and measures taken under this Chapter (Chapter VIII) 
and the information received from the Member States pursuant to Article 41. Article 50 of the 
Regulation  requires  the  Commission  to  review  EMAS  in  the  light  of  the  experience  gained 
during  its  operation  and  international  developments.  It  is  to  take  into  account  the  reports 
transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with Article 47. 

This  Commission  report  and  its  annexes  fulfil  these  requirements.  They  also  provide  the 
findings  of  the  Fitness  check  that  has  been  carried  out  on  the  legislation  as  part  of  the 
European  Commission's  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT 4 ).  The 
REFIT objective of the Fitness check is to understand how the Regulations perform against 
their intended benefits for citizens, businesses and society. 

EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are integrated parts of the product policy framework as presented 
in the 2008 Communication on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable 
Industrial  Policy  Action  Plan 5 .  Since  then  the  7th  Environment  Action  Programme 6  has 
pointed to the need for a policy framework that gives more appropriate signals to producers 
and consumers to promote resource efficiency and circular economy and the Communication 

1 COM (2008) 397 
2 Regulation (EC) 66/2010 
3 Regulation (EC) 1221/2009 
4 COM(2012) 746 
5 COM (2008) 397 
6 Decision No 1386/2013/EU 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
on  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan 7  pointed  to  the  need  to  support  efforts  on  both 
production and consumption to achieve a transition to a circular economy – including making 
better  use  of  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel.  At  the  same  time,  the  Regulations  are  clearly 
relevant in delivering the UN's 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 
in particular Goal 12 to 'ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns'.  

As  well  as  delivering  environmental  objectives,  EMAS  and  Ecolabel  have  the  potential  to 
support economic objectives. For example, firms, including SMEs that participate in EMAS 
can  boost  their  financial  performance  and  competitiveness  by  increasing  their  resource 
efficiency.  If  widely  used  and  appropriately  implemented  EMAS  and  Ecolabel  could  drive 
innovation and deliver real market change. 

This report evaluates the performance of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel in this wider context. 

2.  Assessment  of  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence 
and EU added value 

In  2013,  the  Commission  committed  to  undertake  a  Fitness  check  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  and 
EMAS Regulations. In line with the Commission's Better Regulation guidelines, the Fitness 
check  examined  the  two  schemes  in  terms  of  their  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence  and  their  EU  value  added.  It  also  paid  specific  attention  to  understand  how  the 
Regulations perform against the intended benefits for citizens, businesses and society. 

In terms of the process, the Fitness check was supported by two separate evaluation studies8 
that were supported by stakeholder-engagement including an open public consultation for the 
EU Ecolabel and a focused stakeholder consultation for EMAS. This stakeholder consultation 
was particularly important because the comprehensiveness of the Fitness check exercise was 
limited to some extent by the voluntary nature of the schemes and the lack of data to quantify 
the schemes' impacts.  The absence of a commonly agreed method to quantify and benchmark 
environmental performance of organisations and products also means that it is not possible to 
compare systematically products and organisations that are participating in the schemes with 
those that are not. Moreover, the Regulations did not define clear objectives for their uptake 
and therefore, it is not possible to evaluate quantitatively whether the schemes have delivered 
what was expected of them or not. 

Nevertheless, the Fitness check allowed an assessment of the functioning and performance of 
the schemes, allowing conclusions to be drawn on what is - and/or isn't - working well.  

The  main  findings  about  how  the  Regulations  meet  their  objectives  as  identified  and 
investigated through the Fitness check intervention logic are that they: 

7 COM (2015) 614 
8 Final Report Supporting the Evaluation of the Implementation of EMAS (June 2015), Adelphi and S. Anna 
School of Advanced Studies 
Project to Support the Evaluation of the Implementation of the EU Ecolabel Regulation (April 2015),  Ricardo 
Energy & Environment 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Contribute  to  reducing  the  environmental  impact  of  consumption  and  production 

(general objective). 

  Contribute to promoting continuous improvements in the environmental performance 
of  organisations  and  promote  products  with  reduced  environmental  impact  (specific 
objectives)  through  the  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  and  through  the  environmental 
improvements observed in EMAS organisations (operational objective).  

However this contribution is: 

  Substantially  limited  by  the  level  of  uptake  of  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  by 
producers  and  organisations  (operational  objective)  largely  linked  to  the  limited 
awareness  by  external  stakeholders  including  business  partners,  consumers  but  also 
authorities  resulting  in  limited  market  and  administrative/regulatory  reward  for 
participation as well as due to participation criteria that may in some cases be difficult 
to reach by EU industry. 

  Limited compared to the overall breadth of the challenges to be addressed in terms of 
reducing  the  overall  environmental  impacts  of  consumption  and  production. 

Despite  these  limits,  the  Regulations  remain  relevant  as  part  of  a  package  of  EU  policy 
responses  to  a  growing  need  to  change  current  consumption  and  production  patterns,  as 
reflected  in  current  strategic  policy  objectives,  including  the  Europe  2020  strategy 9,  the 
Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe10, the 7th Environment Action Programme11 and the 
EU  action  plan  for  the  Circular  Economy12.  Among  EU  policy  tools,  EMAS  and  the  EU 
Ecolabel (together with green public procurement) are unique in that they aim to address the 
environmental impact along the whole life cycle, including the increasing number of impacts 
of  European  consumption  that  happens  in  countries  outside  the  EU  where  products  and 
materials are often produced and from which they are imported to the EU. For EMAS, there is 
a question over its future relevance as ISO 14001, revised in 2015, increasingly adopts many, 
but not yet all its main elements. 

The Regulations have been partly effective as they ensure: 

  Enhanced environmental performance for those products that carry the EU Ecolabel. 
However,  the  quantitative  benchmark  of  environmental  excellence  (top  10-20  %  of 
environmental performance  of products on  the market) cannot be verified due to the 
lack of an agreed methodology for comparison and in the absence of comprehensive 
data.  Also,  in  some  cases,  when  the  validity  of  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  is  extended 
without a thorough analysis of the evolution of the market situation, the EU Ecolabel 
may no longer reflect environmental excellence. 

  Enhanced environmental performance on the majority of the core indicators including 
on  energy,  water  and  CO2  for  EMAS  certified  organisations.  On  the  core  indicators 

9 COM(2010)2020 final 
10 COM(2011)571 final 
11 DECISION No 1386/2013/EU 
12 COM(2015)614final 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
waste  and  materials  the  picture  is  mixed  with  more  than  75%  of  EMAS  registered 
companies experiencing a positive performance impact on waste and materials on one 
side and a negative average performance calculated from an a sample of reports on the 
core  indicators  on  the  other.    Studies  show  that  EMAS  generally  delivers  a  better 
increase in environmental performance than ISO 1400113. 

However the overall effectiveness of the instruments is reduced by the limited uptake: 

  The  uptake  of  EMAS  and  the  EU  Ecolabel  is  not  sufficient  to  achieve  significant 
changes  in  overall  consumption  and  production  patterns  and,  through  this,  deliver 
significant  environmental  benefits  beyond  the  companies  and  organisations  deciding 
to be part of the schemes. The limits in uptake for both Regulations can be linked to a 
lack  of  awareness  and  market  recognition;  lack  of  recognition  in  public  policy;  and 
compliance and verification costs. 

For  the  EU  Ecolabel,  there  is  a:  lack  of  promotional  activities  at  all  levels, 
Commission,  Member  State  and  (voluntary  action)  by  companies;  high  number  and 
stringency  of  criteria  requirements;  the  challenge  of  compliance  with  Article  6(6) 
prohibiting the use of hazardous substances. There are also significant differences in 
the uptake for different types of products, with several product groups having no - or 
only  marginal  -  uptake,  reflecting  barriers  for  some  specific  product  groups  on  one 
side, and on the other side a lack of a strategic approach for selecting for which groups 
to develop/revise criteria.  

For EMAS additional barriers are a: lack of integration into public policy in the form 
of incentives and relief from other regulatory requirements ('regulatory relief'); lack of 
promotional activities,  again  at all levels;  the existence of a  globally  recognized and 
less demanding (in terms of reporting / validation) environmental management system 
(ISO 14001) which is the market leader. 

The effectiveness for both schemes varies between Member States with some achieving no or 
very low uptake while others - such as Germany and Spain with respectively 1882 and 1289 
registered  EMAS  sites  and  France  with  555  and  Italy  with  359  registered  EU  Ecolabel 
licenses  -  achieving  better  results.  Such  differences  can  be  mainly  attributed  to  the  level  of 
resources invested by Member  States as well as to whether initiatives are taken to integrate 
the instruments into the wider set of environmental policies. For example, linking EMAS to 
rules  on  environmental  inspections  could  provide  an  incentive  to  adopt  EMAS  and  obtain 
'regulatory  relief'14;  likewise,  Ecolabel  could  be  incentivised  through  a  link  to  Green  Public 
Procurement. 

Based  on  current  limited  cost  and  benefit  data  it  is  not  possible  to  answer  the  question  of 
efficiency.  There  is  some  evidence  linking  the  investments  made  (costs)  and  the  effects 
generated and in general estimates related to the cost of running the scheme are relatively low.  

13 Remas Study (2006), Linking environmental management and performance and Testa et al. (2014) EMAS and 
ISO 14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance. In: Journal of Cleaner 
Production 68:1, pp. 165-173. 
14 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. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
  A  rough  estimate  of  the  average  annual  management  cost  to  the  European 
Commission  (i.e.  cost  excluding  staff  costs)  is  EUR  500 000  for  EMAS  and  EUR 
1 100  000  for  the  EU  Ecolabel.  These  costs  cover  a  system  of  33  product  groups, 
2 000 licenses and 44 000 products for the EU Ecolabel and 4 000 organisations and 
7 500 sites for EMAS. 

  Significant  differences  in  implementation  efforts  at  Member  States'  level  reflect 
differing  evaluations  of  the  cost/  benefit  ratio.  Given  their  voluntary  nature,  the 
schemes  cannot  be  considered  to  impose  any  disproportionate  burdens  on  Member 
States  or  on  companies  and  organisations,  both  of  which  invest  in  them  only  to  the 
extent that they believe it is beneficial. However, low investment also leads to limited 
uptake and limited impact.  

  For  some  EMAS  registered  organisations  –  especially  those  involved  with  energy 
production – energy efficiency measures can result in significant savings (according to 
the  evaluation  study  this  amounts  to  approximately  EUR  1.3  billion  for  all  EMAS 
registered organisations over two years). 

However efficiency is reduced: 

  When  compliance  and  verification  cost  for  individual  companies  and  organisations 
outweigh  the  benefits  and  so  reduce  the  value  for  producers  and  organisations  and 
discourage their participation in the schemes. The impact of this is stronger with small 
operators.  The  low  uptake  of  EMAS  compared  to  ISO  14001  also  indicates  that  the 
experience of cost/benefits by organisations between the two schemes is different.   

  Where there is low or no uptake of specific product groups. Under the EU Ecolabel a 
number  of  product  groups  have  no  or  marginal  uptake  indicating  that  the  market  is 
immature  and/or  that  the  administrative  burden  or  verification  cost  for  compliance 
with certain set of criteria may be too high and act as a barrier for participation.  

Both schemes are considered to be broadly coherent with and complementing other relevant 
EU policies linked to EU Sustainable consumption and production. However, the evaluation 
points towards issues regarding the need to: 

  Further  explore  synergies  with  EU  policies  that  could  make  better  use  of  the 
opportunities provided by the EU Ecolabel and/or EMAS including but not limited to 
the  circular  economy  action  plan,  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practice  Directive,  the 
Public Procurement Directive and the Industrial Emissions Directive. 

With  regards  to  the  coherence  between  the  two  schemes  the  evaluation  shows  that  they  are 
complementing  each  other  with  focus  on  different  targets,  but  a  slight  overlap  can  appear 
when both EMAS and EU Ecolabel address specific service sectors – such as for tourism and 
camping. In this case care should be taken not create confusion for consumers that can choose 
based on both schemes.  

The  EU  added  value  delivered  by  the  schemes  is  uneven.  The  Regulations  delivered  EU 
added value to the extent limited by the voluntary nature of the schemes. Added value is 
delivered by providing a framework for harmonised rules and procedures across the internal 
market,  which  gives  credibility  and  transparency  to  environmental  claims  and  can  support 

6 

 
 
intra-EU  trade.  The  framework  delivers  information  on  the  environmental  performance  of 
products and organisations and the opportunity for integration and streamlining with other EU 
policies. In this way, the framework supports producers and organisations that are willing to 
go beyond mandatory measures; including especially SMEs who would not have the internal 
capacity to build their own systems.  

A full quantitative cost/benefit assessment has not been possible. However, the tools operate 
in a context of general public support for sustainable production and consumption: 77% of the 
EU  population  surveyed  for  Eurobarometer  indicated  that  they  are  willing  to  pay  more  for 
environmentally friendly products if they feel that the claims can be trusted. Whilst responses 
to the public consultations specific to these tools tended to come from those already actively 
engaged in the tools, they were also generally positive about them. For example, 79% of the 
EU Ecolabel stakeholders found that the EU Ecolabel was a valuable tool to facilitate higher 
uptake and free circulation of green products across Europe and 95 % wanted to keep it either 
as  it  is  or  with  changes.  At  the  same  time  more  than  70  %  of  all  EMAS  organisations 
surveyed  found  that  they  had  improved  or  significantly  improved  performance  on  energy 
efficiency, use of materials, water consumption and waste production. 

The uptake of EMAS is significantly lower compared to ISO 14001. However, the evaluation 
shows that EMAS companies perform as well or better than ISO 14001 organisations in terms 
of environmental performance; that the specific EMAS requirements for transparent reporting 
and  control  by  public  authorities  (not  required  by  ISO  14001)  give  higher  credibility  and  a 
better potential for integration into environmental policy. Evidence from the experience of a 
number of EU Member States, which have actively pursued this, confirms this potential. 

However,  because  the  schemes  have  not  achieved  major  uptake  across  Europe  it  is 
difficult to demonstrate full EU added value beyond the environmental improvements for 
the  products,  services  and  organisations  that  participate.  In  particular,  the  impact  of  EMAS 
has  suffered  from  the  competition  with  ISO14001  which  provides  a  globally  recognised 
alternative  to  EMAS.  Nevertheless,  the  interaction  between  the  two  schemes  has  been 
constructive and EMAS has inspired new and improved developments under the global ISO 
14001  standard  brining  it  closer  to  EMAS  although  significant  differences  remain.  EMAS, 
unlike  ISO  14001,  provides  a  compliance  and  reporting  platform  that  makes  environmental 
performance of the organisation transparent to the public and authorities. This platform also 
has  the  capacity  to  facilitate  the  recognition  of  best  performers  by  the  authorities,  the 
development  of  supportive  measures  and  trigger  a  decrease  of  administrative  burden.  This 
capacity is explained by the fact  that authorities and other  third  parties  unlike with ISO are 
given  access  to  and  need  to  sign  off  information  on  environmental  performance  and  legal 
compliance,  thus  providing  sufficient  security  to  delegate  relief  from  other  regulatory 
burdens. 

3. Conclusions 

EU  Ecolabel  and  EMAS  are  part  of  a  wider  package  of  product  policy  instruments  that 
contribute  to  the  Circular  Economy.  The  Fitness  Check  (evaluation  study  and  stakeholder 
consultation)  confirms  the  useful  –  even  if  limited-  role  of  the  schemes  as  voluntary 
instruments  for  businesses  that  facilitate  transition  to  a  circular  economy  and  provide 

7 

 
 
 
 
information on environmental performance of products and organisations to consumers and in 
business to business transactions.  

The  Fitness  check  results  show  that  the  uptake  of  the  schemes  could  be  better  and  more 
efficient. It identifies clear limitations of the two instruments given their voluntary nature and 
the limited level of uptake for a number of product groups and the low awareness of the two 
schemes. There is a need for a more focused approach to maximize impacts on the ground. 

The  Commission  will  therefore  improve  the  performance  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulation 
scheme  and  make  it  more  focused  to  ensure  bigger  cumulative  impact,  by  taking  the 
following actions: 

  Develop a more strategic approach for the EU Ecolabel which would include: 

o  The  definition  of  product  groups,  including  streamlined  criteria  for  selecting 
products  and  for  the  discontinuation,  revision  and  prolongation  of  existing 
criteria  for  each  product  group,  linked  to  the  rate  of  uptake  for  existing 
criteria.  A  more  targeted  approach  also  includes  bundling  of  closely  related 
product  groups  where  appropriate  (e.g.  various  paper-related  products  with 
high potential such as Newsprint and Tissue paper). 

o  The  discontinuation  of  the  following  product  groups:  flushing  toilets  and 
urinals,  sanitary  tapware  and  imaging  equipment,  as  those  product  groups 
have very limited uptake.  

o  Setting  specific  operational  objectives,  targets  and  adequate  monitoring 

activities.  

o  A  communication  strategy, 

towards  both  producers  and  consumers, 
identifying  target  audiences  and  division  of  responsibilities  for  promotional 
activities  shared  with  the  Member  States,  industry  participants  and  relevant 
multipliers, in line with the ten priorities, notably the jobs and growth agenda. 

  Examining  options  to  reduce  administrative  and  verification  costs,  simplifying  the 
the 

consultation  process  and  developing  a  practical  modus  operandi 
implementation of Article 6.6 and 6.7.  

for 

  Options  and  best  practices  to  increase  the  role  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  in  public 

procurement as well as a benchmark for environmental excellence. 

  Undertake  some  preparatory  studies  on  product  groups  jointly  for  Green  Public 
Procurement,  Ecodesign,  Energy  labelling  and  Ecolabel  tools.  This  will  be  saving 
costs  and  prevent  inconsistency  across  studies  commissioned  by  different  DGs  for 
different tools.  

  Improving  consistency  and  integration  between  the  EU  Ecolabel  and  existing 

national/regional labels  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With  respect  to  the  EMAS  Regulation,  and  the  mixed  results  of  the  Fitness  Check,  the 
commitment  and  support  of  Member  States  for  the  scheme  will  be  a  decisive  factor  for 
continuing  the  scheme.  Therefore,  in  2017,  the  Commission  will  seek  confirmation  of  the 
Member States' commitment to:  

1)  the continuation of the scheme and  
2)  the implementation of measures supporting a better take-up. 

Depending on the support of Member States, the Commission will develop actions to further 
increase the added value of the scheme: 

  Develop, in collaboration with Member States, additional opportunities to use EMAS 
as a tool for decreasing administrative burden and regulatory relief. The potential for 
using the tool to decrease administrative burden by providing greater regulatory relief 
remain large and have been unevenly tapped into across Member States. 

  Use  the  compliance  validation  and  transparency  on  environmental  performance 
required  by  EMAS  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  environmental  policies  under 
energy, emissions to air, biodiversity, water or waste management. 

  Examine  how  the  implementation  of  EMAS  can  be  better  integrated  into  the 

implementation of the Green Action Plan for SMEs15.  

  Set out a clear strategy for communicating, including identification of relevant target 
audiences  and  division  of  responsibilities  for  promotional  activities  shared  with  the 
Member  States,  industry  participants  and  relevant  multipliers,  in  line  with  the  ten 
priorities, notably the jobs and growth agenda. 

  European  business  promotion  with  focus  on  front  runners  and  competitiveness 
advantages  in  collaboration  with  Member  States  with  EMAS  as  the  "premium" 
environmental management scheme. 

  Take  into  account  the  evolution  of  ISO  Standard  14001  in  2015  and  interaction 

between the revised standard and EMAS.  

  Replication  of  the  measures  implemented  by  the  Member  States  that  achieved  a 

significant number of EMAS registrations and recognized as best practices. 

  Ensure  efficient  reporting  channels  from  organisations  to  authorities  so  that  EMAS 
verified environmental performance and legal compliance can be used to facilitate the 
implementation of other environmental policies. 

15 COM (2014) 440 

9