Assessment of the results and impacts of energy efficiency related market surveillance projects : publishable executive summary.
Date: 2022-09-14
Institutions: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency
Subjects: energy efficiency, energy market, fund (EU), impact study, market supervision, project evaluation

Assessment of the results and 
impacts of energy efficiency 
related market surveillance projects 

Publishable Executive Summary 

Duncan Woods, Catherine Jones-Morris, Henry Groenen, Alexander Kauffmann, Samantha 
Morgan-Price, Louise Evans and Eugenia Bonifazi 
July 2022 

European Climate, 
1 
Infrastructure and 
Environment 
Executive Agency 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

The European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA)  
CINEA.D - Natural resources, climate, sustainable blue economy and clean energy  
CINEA.D.D1 - LIFE Energy + LIFE Climate  

Contact: Stamatis Sivitos 

E-mail: stamatis.sivitos@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission  
B-1049 Brussels  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Assessment of the results and 
impacts of energy efficiency 
related market surveillance projects 

Publishable Executive Summary 

Study contract number EASME/2020/SC/0003 

The European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) 
Horizon 2020 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Manuscript completed in July 2022 

1st edition 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission is not 
liable  for  any  consequence  stemming  from  the  reuse  of  this  publication.  More  information  on  the  European  Union  is  available  on  the  Internet 
(http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-9208-136-2 

doi: 10.2840/633832 

EF-09-22-316-EN-N        

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse 
of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate 
credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective 
rightholders. The European Union does not own the copyright in relation to the following elements: 
Page A-2, Banner image, Shutterstock.com  
Page A-3, Banner image, Shutterstock.com; Other images, INTAS and EEPLIANT 2 projects 
Page A-4, Banner image, Shutterstock.com 
Page A-5, Banner image, Shutterstock.com; Other images, EEPLIANT 2 and ComplianTV projects 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  CINEA  or  of  the 
Commission. Neither CINEA, nor the Commission can guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither CINEA, nor the Commission 
or any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table of Contents 

Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 2 

Study context ................................................................................................................... 2 

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2 

Project characteristics ...................................................................................................... 3 

Project activities and outputs ............................................................................................ 4 

Quantitative impact assessment ...................................................................................... 5 

Project impacts on problem areas .................................................................................... 5 

Increased market surveillance and enforcement activities carried out by MSAs ...................... 8 
Increased cooperation between MSAs and increased impact of coordination tools ................. 9 
Addressing root causes of non-compliance ........................................................................... 10 

Success stories .............................................................................................................. 11 

Conclusions & recommended actions ............................................................................ 12 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Abstract 

The  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency  (CINEA)  have 
commissioned  Ricardo  to  collect  evidence  on  Horizon  2020  and  IEE-II-funded  energy  efficiency 
related market surveillance projects to assess their impacts and effectiveness.  

The  study  identified  three  main  impact  areas  of  the  EU-funded  projects;  increased  market 
surveillance and enforcement activities carried out by MSAs, increased cooperation between MSAs 
and  addressing  the  root  causes  of  non-compliance.  Specific  problem  drivers  and  barriers  within 
these  impact  areas  were  identified  and  project  impacts  and  activities  in  these  areas  have  been 
highlighted, including notable success stories.  

Our  study  found  widespread  agreement  that  these  EU-funded  projects  had  facilitated  practical 
experience  of  product  testing,  with  less  experienced  MSAs  benefiting  the  most.  However,  the 
majority of survey respondents indicated that projects had limited impact on the quantity of product 
testing performed outside of EU-funded projects. Recommendations have been provided to improve 
the longevity of EU-funded market surveillance project impacts. 

Study context 

Ecodesign and energy labelling provides a key policy framework to deliver the European Green 
Deal and the circular economy as regards energy-related products, contributing to the achievement 
of  EU  energy  saving  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions  reduction  targets  by  2030  and  2050.  Its 
implementation  improves  the  European  Union’s  security  of  supply  by  reducing  primary  energy 
consumption  and  decreasing  energy  imports.  It  reduces  energy  bills  of  citizens  and  businesses, 
while it helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way, thereby mitigating climate 
change.   

Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency  (CINEA)  has 
The  European  Climate, 
commissioned  Ricardo  to  collect  evidence  on  H2020  and  IEE-II-funded  energy  efficiency  related 
market surveillance projects to assess their impacts and effectiveness. 

Methodology 

In  the  initial  data  collection  phase,  the  study  team  assessed  the  provided  project  reporting 
documents, collected and organised all available data and evidence on projects’ activities, outputs 
and impacts, as well as more general project information and qualitative aspects. The study team 
launched  a  targeted  stakeholder  survey  which  collected  additional  evidence  from  market 
surveillance authorities (MSAs) (29), expert consultants (4), laboratories (4), end users (1), suppliers 
(1) and others (7). The survey posed questions on the project impacts on stakeholders’ activities and 
the prioritisation of possible topics to include in future LIFE calls for proposals. The team also carried 
out interviews with 20 stakeholders (some of which had also answered the stakeholder survey) who 
had  participated  in  EU-funded  market  surveillance  projects,  which  enabled  more  nuanced 
discussions  of  project  approaches  and  impacts  and  allowed  the  study  team  to  ask  follow-up 
questions on survey responses. 

Following the collection of data, the study team analysed the collected information. This cross-project 
review  of  KPIs  and  project  data  enabled  the  study  team  to  present  a  full  picture  of  projects’ 
characteristics, activities and outputs. The study team reviewed all projects’ impact calculations, 
selected three examples to illustrate the varying degree of detail and conclusions were drawn on the 
role of quantitative impact estimates for the selected market surveillance actions. 

Impacts  of  projects  on  specific  problem  areas  were  identified  based  on  projects’  activities  and 
outputs. This was followed by reviewing and analysing the collected data, survey inputs and interview 
transcripts  to  provide  a  coherent  and  detailed  overview  of  related  problem  descriptions,  project 
approaches and impacts, barriers, lessons learnt and recommendations. The study team concluded 

2 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

the  analysis  by  extracting  key  takeaways  and  providing  action  points  based  on  the  preceding 
analysis and recommendations. 

Project characteristics 

The  evaluation  focused  on  11  projects  spanning  14  years,  from  ATLETE  (2009-2011)  to 
EEPLIANT 3, scheduled to finish in 2023. A full timeline of the 11 projects is provided below. Among 
these 11 projects there are two series of projects (ATLETE and EEPLIANT), in which successive 
projects have built upon the work of previous projects, for example by expanding activities to new 
product  groups  or  geographical  locations  or  by  further  developing  a  methodology.  In  total,  some 
€24.1 million of EU funding has been allocated for the 11 projects. The majority of this funding has 
been provided for more recent projects, with over a quarter of this amount provided for the Concerted 
Action on Market Surveillance (EEPLIANT 3) alone. 

ATLETE, €0.76m

IEE-II

H2020

Ecopliant, €1.78m

ATLETE II, €1.19m

MarketWatch, €1.70m

ComplianTV, €0.97m

EEPLIANT, €2.50m

INTAS, €1.85m

MSTYR15, €1.88m

EEPLIANT 2, €2.67m

ANTICSS, €1.96m

EEPLIANT 3, €6.85m

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Figure 1. Timeline of the 11 projects assessed in this study, with funding programme and amount of EU 
funding received by each project highlighted 

A  range  of  institutions  from  across  Europe  have  participated  in  the  11  projects.  In  total,  project 
participants from 27 countries have taken part in the projects, with Belgium and Germany the most 
common location of project partners. 

3 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 2. Geographical spread of project participants1 

All 11 projects targeted MSAs in their activities. The majority of projects also aimed to address at 
least one more category of market stakeholder. Suppliers and end users were targeted by a similar 
number  of  projects.  Other  market  stakeholders  were  also  targeted  by  four  projects,  for  example 
NGOs which were a key target of the MarketWatch project. 

The  11  projects  carried  out  activities  across  28  product  categories.  Domestic  refrigerators  and 
freezers  were  the most frequently  targeted  product groups; the  subject  of five projects’ activities, 
while domestic washing machines, room air conditioning appliances and televisions were each the 
focus of four projects. 

Project activities and outputs 

Our collection of data relating to project activities largely focused on market surveillance activities 
performed by MSAs, with information relating to training and dissemination activities also collected, 
where available. 

According to our assessment of the project documentation, 1,189 tests and 134,245 inspections 
were  performed  during  the  projects. This figure  is  dominated  by  the  MarketWatch project,  during 
which 103,141 label inspections were performed, mainly by environmental NGOs. In terms of testing, 
a total of 1,189 laboratory tests have been performed, which have been fairly evenly spread across 
the 11 projects2.  

Furthermore, product testing and inspecting has led to 323 changes in technical documentation, 
76 product withdrawals from the market and 86 penalty fines being imposed.  

In terms of dissemination activities, 264 events have been held across the 11 projects with 2,974 
reported attendees, although this is likely to be an underestimation as the number of attendees at 
events was not always reported by projects. 

1 Note: This is the number of times an institution from each country has participated in one of the 11 projects. Some institutions participated 
in multiple projects so may be counted multiple times within these figures. 

2 EEPLIANT 3 activities are ongoing so these figures (as well as some of those reported further on) could increase. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The number of trainings provided does not appear to be a well-reported metric, although it was stated 
that a label inspection training video was developed by MSTyr15.  

The  level  of  compliance  observed  during  project  activities  was  also  captured  from  project 
documentation, where reported. All projects, besides INTAS, reported levels of compliance observed 
after  carrying  out  inspections  and  tests.  These  compliance  levels  were  generally  associated  with 
specific  product groups, although  in some  cases  the figures  represent  a number  of  products that 
were tested and so levels of compliance were deemed as being reported at ‘Project-level’. 

Best practice guidelines are by far the most commonly produced project output (16 guidelines from 
10  projects).  Networks  of  MSAs,  experts  and  suppliers,  triggering  new  standardisation  work  and 
voluntary protocols have also been produced by projects (2 each). 

Quantitative impact assessment 

The calculation of impact estimates was found to be challenging in these market surveillance-related 
projects. However, insights have been gained into the scale of energy and related cost savings 
that market surveillance and specifically market surveillance projects can have. The presentation 
of literature and three project approaches to calculating the impact of market surveillance measures 
has shown that there are varying degrees of calculation reliability. The EEPLIANT 2 project produced 
very detailed  workbooks elaborating their assumptions, calculations and estimates for the energy 
savings  expected  from  the  project’s  actions  based  on  stock  turnover  and  compliance  rates.  This 
could  be  used  as  a  template  going  forward.  However,  all  calculation  attempts  suffer  from  an 
uncertainty around the total market change in compliance levels as a result of market surveillance 
actions. 

All calculations have demonstrated that the projects’ value to the EU outweighs their cost, 
thus  indicating  that  the  funding  of  these  projects  has  a  positive  impact  on  the  EU  and  the  single 
market and should therefore be maintained. 

Impact calculations attempted to estimate the direct impact of market surveillance actions 
only. Therefore, they do not consider any indirect impacts, which are not quantifiable. These indirect 
impacts are mainly the deterrence effect on suppliers as a result of market surveillance activities, 
but also the valuable impacts on the MSAs participating in the projects and industry becoming more 
aware of relevant regulations as a direct result of the projects. These indirect effects can be assessed 
in a more qualitative manner, focusing more on the impacts on MSAs but also considering the ways 
projects aimed to address the root causes of non-compliance. 

Project impacts on problem areas 

A survey of key stakeholder groups (MSAs, suppliers, laboratories, expert consultants, end users 
and others) and project participants was undertaken to collect their views on the impacts of their EU 
market surveillance projects supported through IEE II and H2020 as well as on possible priorities 
under future LIFE calls for proposals. A total of 46 respondents completed the survey sufficiently for 
their responses to be included in this analysis, with 43 of those having fully completed the survey. 
The majority of respondents were from national MSAs (29 individuals).  

Furthermore, interviews with MSAs (13), expert consultants (6) and other industry stakeholders (1) 
were  carried  out  to clarify  project  activities,  understand the  sustainability  of  the  project  outcomes 
after their completion, collect stakeholder experiences of lessons learnt, problems and barriers to 
delivery of the projects, and to clarify answers already provided in the survey (if appropriate). 

5 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 3. Project impact responses for outcomes not usually included in the official IEE or H2020 project 
reporting (MSAs only) 

The survey results indicate that project participation generally had a positive impact. More than half 
of  the  responses  from  MSAs  for  each  of  the  12  outcomes  presented,  expressed  that  project 
participation either had significant or some positive impact.  

The  most  commonly  cited  positive  impact  from  project  participation  was  an  increase  in 
communication  and  information  sharing  between  different  MSAs  (28  out  of  39),  followed  by 
increases in the number of laboratory tests performed (20 out of 37 responses) and improved 
skills within the organisation (20 out of 36 responses). 

On  the  priority  ranking  of  potential  activities  under  future  LIFE  calls  for  proposals  (Figure  4),  the 
highest  priority  was  given  by  MSAs  to  ‘Finance  for  specific  testing  campaigns  for  product 
groups that are more challenging to test’ with 10 out of 25 indicating it was an ‘essential priority’ 
and  11  out  of  25  indicating  it  was  a  ‘high  priority’.  Following  this,  three  quarters  of  respondents 
indicated  three  other  activities  that  were  ‘essential’  or  ‘high’  priority.  These  were:  ‘support 
laboratory testing’ (14 ‘essential priority’ and three ‘high priority’ out of 23), ‘facilitating networking 
among MSAs to share experience and knowledge’ (7 ‘essential priority’ and 10 ‘high priority’ out 
of  23),  ‘Issue  consolidated  FAQs  to  common  issues  encountered  by  MSAs  for  specific 
products’ (nine ‘essential priority’ and nine ‘high priority’ out of 24).   

6 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 4. Priority ranking of potential future activities (MSAs only) 

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the project impacts, the study team assessed the projects’ 
aims  and  activities to  identify  the key  action  areas and  problem  drivers  targeted. This  provided a 
framework for the study team to assess each action area individually to identify successes, barriers 
and recommendations for future work. 

The study identified three main impact areas that the EU-funded projects targeted. The first identified 
impact  area  was  increased  market  surveillance  and  enforcement  activities  carried  out  by 
MSAs. The drivers of the increased activities in this area include increased experience carrying out 
monitoring,  verification  and  enforcement  (MVE)  activities,  more  guidance  and  uptake  of  MVE 
activities best practices, improved efficiency of MSA operations, greater access to cost-effective and 
adequate testing facilities and testing skills and support for MSAs carrying out more enforcement 
activities. 

The second impact area is improved cooperation between MSAs. This impact area explores how 
increased knowledge sharing  and  coordination  between  MSAs  and increased  uptake of  provided 
coordination tools has improved how MSAs cooperate and thus improved the effectiveness of their 
market surveillance activities. 

The third and final impact area explores how projects addressed some of the root causes of non-
compliance. The drivers identified were improving industry awareness and developed guidance for 
industry,  defining  and  addressing  circumvention  and  identifying  shortcomings  of  legislation  and 
harmonised standards. 

7 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

For  each  of  these  impact  drivers,  the  study  team  outlines  the  problem  definition,  the  project 
approaches  to  address  the  underlying  problem,  the  impacts  of  project  activities  and  outputs,  the 
barriers  faced,  the  lessons  learnt,  the  recommendations  provided,  and  actions  points  to  improve 
future initiatives. 

Increased experience carrying 
out MVE activities

More guidance and uptake of 
MVE activities best practices

Improved efficiency of MSA 
operations 

Greater access to cost-
effective and adequate testing 
facilities and testing skills

Supported MSAs in carrying 
out more enforcement 
activities

Increased cooperation 
between MSAs

Increased uptake of provided 
coordination tools

Improved industry awareness 
and developed guidance for 
industry

Defined and addressed 
circumvention

Identified shortcomings of 
legislattive requirements

Identified shortcomings of 
harmonised standards

Increased market surveillance 
and enforcement activities 
carried out by MSAs

Increased cooperation 
between MSAs and increased 
impact of coordination tools 

Improved compliance with the 
ecodesign and energy 
labelling regulations

Addressed root causes of 
non-compliance 

Figure 5. Identified impacts of projects leading to improved compliance 

The three main impact areas in Figure 5 are discussed in further detail below. 

Increased market surveillance and enforcement activities carried out by MSAs 

It is evident that many MSAs have limited financial resources, and this can be linked to the amount 
of funding that Member States provide to their MSAs. Time and human resources are also limited. 
Acknowledging  this,  it  can  be  understood  that  limited  resources  for  MVE  activities  limits  MSA 
effectiveness. 

Many MSAs have a broad remit, and MVE activities in ecodesign and energy labelling regulations 
can be complex and expensive, limiting the surveillance that MSAs with small budgets can do. Many 
stakeholders repeatedly highlighted this issue, and it was suggested that poorly resourced MSAs 
could  not  carry  out  any  laboratory  testing  at  all,  but  only  document  checks  or  label  inspections 
instead.  

EU funded projects have led to improvements in market surveillance work in the following areas: 

 

Increased experience carrying out MVE activities 

  More guidance and uptake of MVE activity best practices 

8 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

 

Improved efficiency of MSA operations 

  Greater access to cost-effective and adequate testing facilities and testing skills 

  Supporting MSAs in carrying out more enforcement actions 

The exposure and experience developed through projects have given MSAs more confidence in 
carrying  out  tests  both  inside  and  outside  of  these  projects,  with  38  out  of  39  MSAs  indicating  a 
positive impact. Moreover, the development of best practice guidance and tools, including IT tools, 
have increased MSAs’ efficiency. Involvement of the respective Administrative Cooperation Groups 
(ADCOs)  has  resulted  in  wider  project  result  sharing,  along  with  common  templates  for  data 
gathering and shared approaches. Increased communication channels, established as a result of 
these  projects,  have  reduced  time  spent  solving  problems,  as  solutions  can  be  easily  shared  in 
informal professional communications. 

Uptake of best practices developed within projects was supported by: 

  The  continual  development  and  use  of  guidelines  produced  in  projects,  particularly 

throughout the successive EEPLIANT projects 

  Use of tools reducing time on manual tasks, with IT tools developed by projects said to be 

most useful in reducing time spent on manual tasks, particularly when using ICSMS 

  Workshops  and  training  events  aimed  at  giving  practical  guidance  to  MSAs  and  other 

stakeholders and advice on how best to interpret and comply with regulations. 

It is undoubtable that these EU-funded projects have carried out a large number of tests  (1,189), 
enabling testing for products that MSAs would not have had the technical capability for and would 
not normally have been able to afford. However, as multiple stakeholders suggested, some MSAs 
rely solely on laboratory tests within projects, so the projects have simply provided funding for 
those  MSAs  who  would  otherwise  have  no  testing  budget.  This  allows  them  only  to  ensure  a 
minimal level  of testing  via EU-funded projects,  and  not  expand the  number  of tests  outside  of 
these projects. 

Key actions suggested to address this barrier include: 

  Maintenance of IT tools and knowledge banks with a central organisation, to maintain and 

possibly improve them beyond the completion of projects 

  Consider  increased  support  for  MSAs,  which  often  have  limited  resources,  in  their 

enforcement activities 

 

Investigate  further  the  changes  in  testing  outside  of  projects  by  comparing  regularly 
participating and non-participating organisations, combined with before and after the project’s 
end comparisons 

  Consider  engaging  with  the  Member  States  on  the  resources  they  allocate  to  market 

surveillance 

  Consider end-project surveys of beneficiaries for systematic qualitative assessment of 

project benefits. 

Increased cooperation between MSAs and increased impact of coordination tools 

Systematic  cooperation  among  MSAs,  as  well  as  with  related  economic  operators,  has  proved 
challenging. Several articles within the new Market Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/10203, which 
apply  after  the  completion  of  most  of  these  projects  and  specify  requirements  for  cooperation 

3 REGULATION (EU) 2019/1020 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R1020&from=EN  

9 

 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

between MSAs ((Article 22), the PCN (Article 29), and ADCOs (Article 30(2), (Article 32 2(b)), could 
increase this cooperation. 

Many  of  the projects  identified  shortcomings  in  coordination  actions across  MSAs,  and in  the 
tools  used  to  facilitate  this  coordination.  Stakeholders  generally  shared  the  opinion  that  limited 
coordination  limits  the  efficiency  of  MSA  work,  and  that  they  valued  the  interactions  that  were 
facilitated by EU-funded projects. These would not have occurred without these projects, and lead 
to individual level, long-term informal relationships, meaning that MSA staff can simply contact each 
other to solve problems, instead of formally contacting national representatives. 

Most  projects  had  aspects  of  training  or  knowledge  sharing,  which  involved  communication 
between MSAs and other stakeholders, for example on the implementation of the  Ecodesign and 
Energy Labelling Regulations on professional refrigerated storage cabinets in EEPLIANT 2. These 
often led to harmonised approaches, addressing various aspects of non-compliance with ecodesign 
and  energy  labelling  regulations and  therefore  an overall  strengthened single market  as  a result. 
Some coordination tools developed in earlier projects were built on in successive projects, ensuring 
work  was  improved  and  not  lost.  However,  often  tools  are  not  maintained  or  further  developed 
outside of projects, as they are not supported with funding or a central facilitator.  

Key actions suggested in this area include:  

  Establishing an EU-level agency to support and coordinate MSA tasks, including  

o  Ownership, maintenance and management of IT tools 

o  Joint procurement of products and testing for MSAs 

  Adding additional functionalities to ICSMS and EPREL to improve effectiveness of MSA 

work (e.g. advanced searching and analytics). 

Addressing root causes of non-compliance 

The projects have contributed to addressing the following main causes of non-compliance:  

  A lack of awareness and guidance for industry 

  Unclear definitions of circumvention, and therefore confusion on how to address it 

  Other shortcomings of legislative requirements and harmonised standards 

The interaction of these causes leads e.g. to exploitation of legal loopholes and lack of compliance 
by  suppliers,  and  reduced  efficiency  of  MSAs  carrying  out  market  surveillance.  Stakeholders 
throughout this sector highlighted the complexity of legislation, harmonised standards and technical 
circumvention,  combined  with  high  product  turnover  and  a  long  enforcement  process  as  main 
aspects of this problem driver. Unclear harmonised standards and legislation compound a lack of 
industry awareness to lead to non-compliance. 

The inclusion of industry stakeholders in project activities has led to increased engagement with 
market  surveillance  strategic  planning,  and  an  increased  general  awareness  of  ecodesign  and 
energy labelling issues. This can be attributed to the number of workshops and guidance documents 
prepared  for  non-MSA  stakeholders  throughout  the  projects.  Through  these  activities,  it  was 
highlighted  that  SMEs  are  most  likely  to  have  limited  resources  to  understand  regulations  and 
harmonised standards in this area, and most likely to require additional guidance. 

Prior  to  these  projects,  there  was  a lack  of  awareness on  circumvention. The  ANTICSS  project 
addressed this and increased industry awareness,  creating new definitions for circumvention and 
“jeopardy  effects”4,  and  creating  tools  to  identify  cases  of  circumvention  in  a  variety  of  different 
products.  

4 As defined by ANTICSS project, “jeopardy effects encompass all aspects of products or test instructions, or interpretation of test results, 
which do not follow the goal of the EU Ecodesign and/or Energy Labelling legislation of setting Ecodesign requirements and providing 

10 

 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

In general, projects did not aim to address shortcomings in legislation or harmonised standards but 
were  able  to  identify  them  as  a  result  of  continued  MVE  activities.  This  allowed  stakeholders  to 
routinely  identify  weaknesses,  and  feedback  where  relevant.  The  64  policy  recommendations 
developed by these EU-funded projects indicate this was frequently done, however the process to 
implementing  suggested  changes  is  slow,  and  multiple  stakeholders  described  these  types  of 
impacts as limited. However, feedback has led so far to documented changes in related LEDs and 
motors legislation, possibly on network standby, fans and tumble dryers in the future. Furthermore, 
the ANTISCS project’s policy recommendations on circumvention aspects may also be taken up in 
future legislation. 

Key actions suggested to address these issues include:  

 

Improving the clarity of regulations (e.g. definitions), and provide further guidance on how 
to interpret them 

  Provide  specific  support  for  SMEs  in their  awareness  of  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling 

legislation 

 

Increase dissemination activities, to increase compliance by economic operators 

  Pursue further engagement with industry stakeholders 

  Consider pursuing a ‘name and shame’ approach to non-compliance. 

Success stories 

Four major success stories were identified across the 11 projects (full details provided in Annex 1): 

  Actionable policy feedback supporting the development and implementation of ecodesign 

and energy labelling legislation 

o  EU-funded  projects  enabled  the  provision  of  relevant  input  to  policy  makers  and 
standardisation organisations by Market Surveillance Authorities and other stakeholders. 

o  EEPLIANT  2  recommendations  to  close  loopholes  regarding  scope  and  legislative 
requirements in the network standby legislation (Regulation (EU) No 801/2013), have led 
to changes in the draft proposal for the revision of this regulation. 

o  Recommendations from the INTAS project on the testing of large products were taken on 
board in the new motors Regulation (EU) 2019/1781) and are also being considered for 
the revision of the fans Regulation (EU) No 327/2011. 

  EU-funded projects supported Market Surveillance Authorities in expanding their testing 

scope and capabilities 

o  Many projects were ground-breaking in testing specific products– for example, products 
featuring network standby in EEPLIANT 2, and large ventilation equipment in the INTAS 
project.  

o  The EU funding lifted cost barriers to testing in new areas; without these projects, some 

MSAs would not have expanded their activities. 

o  An MSA representative who had participated in multiple H2020 projects described how 
these  led  to  an  increased  testing  regime.  Testing  in  this  MSA  had  increased  from  15 
products in 2017 to 31 products in 2019.  

  Collaboration between Market Surveillance  Authorities across EU Member States aided 

enforcement practices 

reliable  information  about  the  resource  consumption  and/or  performance  of  a  product.  These  effects  may  be  not  classified  as 
circumvention but become possible due to loopholes or other weaknesses in standards or regulations.”  

11 

 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

o  EU-funded projects enabled knowledge transfers on specific products or issues, such as 
testing  and  enforcement.  The  INTAS  project  provides  a  good  example  of  such  an 
initiative, by establishing an MSA network for addressing challenging and less common 
products,  which  encouraged  MSAs  to  work  together.  These  new  communication 
channels  spread  the  burden  of  compliance  verification  across  national  and  regional 
boundaries, synergising MSA operations. 

o 

In  the  Ecopliant  project,  Denmark,  Sweden  and  the  UK  collaboratively  organised  the 
testing of fifty electric motors. This was the first time the UK had sent products to another 
Member  State  for  testing,  ensuring  that  a  large  sample  of  the  market  was  assessed 
without duplicated testing.  

o  The EEPLIANT projects were noted as examples of effective collaboration by interviewed 
stakeholders. Participating MSAs stored, accessed and exchanged information on non-
compliant  products,  both  through  existing  tools  such  as  the  ICSMS  and  EPREL 
databases,  and  newly  developed  tools  such  as  the  EEPLIANT  3  Wiki  Confluence 
platform. This  practice has helped to avoid  duplication  of testing, saving  resources for 
MSAs and increasing efficiency of market surveillance activities.   

  Workshops  with  industry  stakeholders  increased  regulatory  awareness  and  helped  to 

build capacity 

o  The  EEPLIANT  2  Brainstorming  Workshop  helped  bring  together  significant  project 
partner organisations and related stakeholders to explore non-compliance and remedies, 
including barriers and good practices.   

o  National and international workshops in the ComplianTV project were a success in terms 
of  stakeholder  involvement  and  the  gathering  of  expertise.  Workshops  were  held  to 
discuss standardised testing and surveying, and policy recommendations. Guidelines for 
the  standardised  product testing  and  market  surveillance  of TVs  were  developed  as a 
result of these workshops. 

Conclusions & recommended actions 

The 11 projects carried out a significant number of activities, including: 

  1,189 tests and 134,245 inspections across 28 product categories 

  323 changes in technical documentation, 76 product withdrawals and 86 penalty fines 

  264 events with at least 2,974 reported attendees 

  A range of useful outputs, including 16 best practice guidelines. 

Our study found wide agreement that these EU-funded projects had facilitated practical experience 
of product testing, with less experienced MSAs benefiting the most. As a result, more MSAs now 
have the  confidence  and skills to  cost-effectively  inspect  and  test  a  wider range  of products  than 
they had previously. 45 out of 46 responses from MSAs and expert consultants indicated a positive 
impact or improvements to market surveillance working methods following MSAs’ participation 
in  EU  projects.  Examples  cited  include  uptake  of  best  practice  guidelines,  testing  checklists  and 
direct communication channels with other inspectors in the EU, which MSAs have taken into their 
work outside of projects, including for the training of new inspectors.  

However, the impact on product testing work performed outside of EU projects remains unclear.  
The majority of survey respondents thought projects had no significant impact on the quantity of tests 
outside  of  these  projects,  with  the  notable  exception  of  one  MSA,  whose  testing  increased 
significantly5.  Comments  from  project  participants  generally  agreed  on  the  European  Court  of 

5 See Annex 1, p.A-3 

12 

 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Auditors  report  findings  suggesting  a  reliance  of  MVE  work  on  EU  funding.6  The  cost  of  testing, 
combined with restricted MSA resources has resulted in some dependence on EU projects to lift cost 
barriers, create economies of scale and make it easier for MSAs to participate in testing activities. 
Without this funding, some MSAs are restricted to documents inspection and simple desktop work. 
In this way, EU projects do provide a  temporary solution to an ongoing lack of national funding 
issue.  

Through a meta-analysis, the study found that project activities in knowledge sharing, increasing 
industry  awareness  and  capacity  building  to  be  highly  impactful,  valued  by  participants,  and 
beneficial to MSA efficiency. However, these are unlikely to be sustained by the market as non-
income generating activities, and requiring some form of central organisation. Supported experience 
in carrying out laboratory tests were equally as impactful, and particularly important to MSAs with 
low budgets. The study team believe there may be potential for laboratory tests to be sustained by 
the market, if income from administered fines can be used to support laboratories, and support is 
maintained for a high number of tests.  

Recommended actions to address the identified issues include: 

  Ensure sufficient resources for MSAs to accomplish their basic tasks. This would allow 
MSAs to reduce dependence on EU funding and concentrate on issues with a real EU added 
value  with  lasting  impacts  (e.g.  development  of  common  IT  tools,  training,  joint  testing  of 
complex products). 

 

Increasing access to a central knowledge library as a means of disseminating project 
knowledge, outputs, tools and experiences at the end of a project’s lifetime. Integration 
of a knowledge library, such as the EEPLIANT 3 Wiki Confluence, into the training of MSAs 
and  relevant  staff  can  ensure  that  project  outputs  are  shared  and  reused,  with  MSAs 
continuing  to  benefit  from  these  even  when  there  is  staff  turnover  and  projects  have 
concluded. Expanding such a library with strong search and visualisation features to increase 
data clarity and user friendliness would improve knowledge transfer. 

  Continue to seek improvements in training, awareness raising and guidance material 
in future projects. This will benefit all stakeholders but will be particularly helpful for those 
businesses without technical experts, such as SME manufacturers and retailers. Providing 
support directly to them will level the playing field in terms of resources that they can utilise 
to increase their compliance.  

  Enhanced policy feedback to the European Commission, and maintain collaboration 
of other stakeholders in continuation of actions after project completion.  Resources 
should be allocated to host workshops at the end of each project as a standardised approach, 
to assess the impacts of policy recommendations, when possible, and project outputs. This 
will provide useful guidance and direction for new funded projects as well as building pre-
requisite understanding of project successes and failures among stakeholder participants. 

  Modern  IT  tools  for  a  more  structured  approach  to  screening,  documentation 
inspection and uploads should be prioritised. This would help MSAs to keep pace with 
increased  levels  of  e-commerce  through  the  use  of  tools  such  as  the  web-crawler  under 
development  in EEPLIANT  3. In addition,  advanced  analytics  can  be  used to exploit  data 
(e.g.  from  ICSMS  and  EPREL)  to  inform  future  activity,  regarding  concentration  of 
surveillance activities, for certain product groups with higher potential for non-compliance. 

  Update  and  improve  the  clarity  of  ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  regulations.  This 
would  reduce  the  need  for  legal  disputes  relating  to  instances  of  non-compliance. 
Involvement of MSAs and ADCOs in policy and test assessment harmonised standard design 
could ensure greater enforceability for cases of non-compliance under surveillance activities. 

6 ECA Special Report 01/2020: EU action on Ecodesign and Energy Labelling: important contribution to greater energy efficiency reduced 
by significant delays and non-compliance; https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=52828   

13 

 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  Centralised  IT  tool  maintenance  and  management  should  be  a  key  focus  going 
forward.  Increased  investment  to  maintain  IT  tools  will  increase  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness  of  market  surveillance.  Maintenance  and  long-term  management  of  IT  tools 
developed within projects need a central organiser. Project end-dates create uncertainty for 
users of the IT tools developed within the project and while these tools are typically managed 
by the project coordinator during the project, they are left un-managed, as there is no funding 
available  at  the  end  of  the  project’s  lifetime.  This  reduces  the  availability  of  the  tools  and 
prevents further development.  

  Promoting engagement with suppliers to ensure increased awareness of harmonised 
standards and regulations and to increase the compliance levels. While MSA’s have an 
important role it  is  also key  that  other  actors  such as suppliers  and  retailers  are  aware  of 
legislative  requirements.  The  Commission  could  facilitate  awareness  campaigns  for 
economic  operators  or  other  capacity  building  activities,  which  will  increase  industry 
cooperation in complying with the related regulations.   

  Address barriers hampering monitoring and testing coordination. Coordination efforts 
are limited by the differing market surveillance aims and procedures across the EU. Aspects 
to focus on include: 

o  Harmonised product identifiers under ecodesign legislation 

o  Lack of suitable testing facilities 

o 

Increasing visibility of market surveillance 

o  Efforts to shorten inspection and enforcement processes, maintaining pace with 

the fast turnover of products on the market  

o  Geographical issues, for example linked to the clearly delineated coverage of MSAs’ 

enforcement jurisdiction. 

  Consider increased involvement of energy agencies or creating a central agency for 
supporting market  surveillance  activities  to increase  efficiency  and reduce  burdens 
on MSAs. A key impact of coordinated action is leveraging synergies between MSAs and to 
achieve impacts that individual MSAs could not have achieved. A central agency that carries 
out administrative (e.g. joint procurement) and coordination tasks for MSAs could help them 
focus more on the technical work on which they are experts. National MSAs would still be 
needed  for  fieldwork  but  a  central  agency  that  facilitates  more  collaboration  could  enable 
more efficient market surveillance in the EU.  

Examples of actions which could be taken on centrally include: 

o  Procurement  of  products  for  MSAs  -  This  practice  was  successful  in  multiple 
projects, where this was carried out by a central coordinator, and was highlighted as 
a useful practice by MSAs 

o  Joint  procurement  of  testing  would  generate  economies  of  scale  and  reduce 

administrative burden for MSAs 

o  Training  -  A  central  agency  could  offer  certified  training  for  market  surveillance 
professionals as well as links to continued professional development, portable skills 
certification and recognised courses 

o  Ownership, maintenance and management of tools developed by projects - The 
long-term maintenance, ownership and information sharing of coordination or other 
tools by a central agency would be a solution for the lack of continuation of project 
work after their lifetimes  

o 

IT capacity - A central agency with dedicated IT capacity could provide support to all 
MSAs, developing existing IT tools to help increase their use and encourage further 
cooperation.

14 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 1: Success stories 

A-1 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

A-2 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

A-3 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

A-4 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

A-5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information 
centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data 
can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
F
-
0
9
-
2
2
-
3
1
6
-
E
N
N

-

ISBN 978-92-9208-136-2