COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 252 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 253 final}  
 
 
Section 1 Executive summary 

This  fitness check  covers  two  schemes  that  firms  may  voluntarily  use:  Regulation  (EC)  No 
66/20101    on  the  EU  Ecolabel  (the  EU  Ecolabel  regulation)  and  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1221/2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management 
and  audit  scheme  (EMAS)  (the  EMAS  regulation)2.  In  line  with  the  Commission's  Better 
Regulation  guidelines,  the  fitness  check  examined  the  schemes  in  terms  of  their  relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and their EU value added.  

In terms of the process, the Fitness check was supported by two separate evaluation studies 
that  were  supported  by  stakeholder-engagement  including  a  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: 

  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)  due  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. 

1 Regulation (EC) No 66/2010  
2 Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009  

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
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  strategy3,  the 
Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe4, the 7th Environment Action Programme5 and the 
EU  action  plan  for  the  Circular  Economy6.  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 
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 reportings on 
the core indicators on the other.  Studies show that EMAS generally delivers a better 
increase in environmental performance than ISO 14001. 

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

  The uptake of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel which is not sufficient to drive the overall 
market and thus 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  is  due  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,  the  number  and 
stringency of criteria requirements, and 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'),  the 

3 COM(2010)2020 final 
4 COM(2011)571 final 
5 DECISION No 1386/2013/EU 
6 COM(2015)614final 

3 

 
 
                                                            
lack  of  promotional  activities,  and  the  existence  of  a  globally  recognized  and  less 
demanding  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  can  provide  an  incentive  to  adopt  EMAS  and  obtain 
'regulatory  relief'7;  likewise,  Ecolabel  can  be  incentivised  through  a  link  to  Green  Public 
Procurement. 

The  regulations  can  also  be  considered  partly  efficient  in so  far  as  the cost  of  running  the 
scheme is relatively low: 

  A  rough  estimate  of  the  average  annual  cost  to  the  European  Commission  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 uptake of EMAS compared to ISO 14001 is an unsurprising indicator 
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.  

7 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. 
4 

 
 
                                                            
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  development  of  the  EU  strategy  for  non-toxic 
environment,  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practice  Directive,  the  Public  Procurement 
Directive and the Industrial Emissions Directive. 

  Address the overlap between the EU Ecolabel and the Energy Label, where synergies 
may be better exploited by aligning the different work-plans, and where having both 
labels for one product group may not always be the best option. 

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  give  credibility  and  transparency  to  environmental  claims.  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 
show that EMAS companies perform as good or better than ISO 14001 organisations in terms 
of  environmental  performance;  that  specific  EMAS  requirements  such  as  transparent 
reporting and control by public authorities gives 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 

5 

 
 
from the competition with ISO14001 which provides an less demanding alternative to EMAS 
through  harmonised  rules  and  procedures  for  environmental  management  recognized  at 
global level. 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  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. 

6