COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accounting of greenhouse gas emissions of transport services
Date: 2023-07-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, disclosure of information, environmental monitoring, environmental standard, exchange of information, greenhouse gas, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 11.7.2023  SWD(2023) 440 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accounting of greenhouse gas emissions of transport services {COM(2023) 441 final} - {SEC(2023) 441 final} - {SWD(2023) 441 final} - {SWD(2023) 442 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The legal basis giving the EU the right to act are Article 91(1) and Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  In  accordance  with  Article  4(2)  of  the  Treaty,  shared 
competence between the EU and the Member States applies in the area of transport.  

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

In the case of transport policy area, the Union’s competence is shared. 

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined in 
Article 3 TFEU1. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal falls under the 
subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU2 sets out the areas where competence is shared 
between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets out the areas for which the Unions 
has competence only to support the actions of the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 24: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

- 

The  Commission  actively  engaged  with  stakeholders  and  conducted  comprehensive 
consultations throughout the impact assessment process. Stakeholders’ views started to be 
collected  in  response  to  the  publication  of  the  Call  for  Evidence  (19  November  to  17 
December  2021).  A  total  of  64  replies  were  received,  which  helped  to  refine  the  approach 
and better identify the barriers that hamper the harmonised accounting of GHG emissions of 
transport services. As part of preparing the proposal, other consultation activities included:  

o  Open public consultation (OPC), organised by the Commission and running from 25 July 
to  20  October  2022.  A  total  of  188  responses  were  received,  covering  a  variety  of 
stakeholder groups. The responses came from companies and businesses (63), business 
associations  (59),  EU  citizens  (26),  public  authorities  (26),  NGOs  (8),  academic  and 
research  institutions  (4),  consumer  organisations  (3),  trade  unions  (2),  environmental 
organisations (1) and other (10); 

o  Exploratory 

interviews  organised  by  the  consultant  responsible  for  the 

impact 
assessment support study in July 2022 and directed at a passenger transport association, 
a shippers’ association, a non-profit environmentally oriented organisation and a green 
transport programme;  

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN  
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN  
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML  
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
                                                           
o  Targeted  stakeholders’  consultation  organised  by  the  consultant  responsible  for  the 
impact assessment support study, including a survey and series of interviews. The survey 
ran from August  to October 2022 and directed at individual companies (12), transport 
associations  (9),  public  authorities  (4),  consumers  and  passengers  association  (2), 
academia and research (1) and other types of stakeholders (4). The interviews addressed 
representatives  of  individual  stakeholders  (38),  including  businesses  (22),  business 
associations  (7),  consumer  organisations  (1),  public  authorities  (1)  and  other  types  of 
stakeholders (5); a stakeholder workshop, jointly organised by the Commission and the 
consultant  responsible  for  the  impact  assessment  support  study  on  27  October  2022, 
with  43  participants  representing  33  stakeholders,  out  of  which  businesses,  business 
organisations, public authorities and individual experts. 

- 

The  principle  of  subsidiarity  is  duly  addressed  in  the  legislative  proposal  (Explanatory 
memorandum,  Section  2)  and  the  Staff  Working  Document  presenting  the 
impact 
assessment report (Section 3.2). 

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

The explanatory memorandum does provide an adequate justification regarding the conformity with 
the principle of subsidiarity.  By  establishing  harmonised rules for GHG emissions accounting at the 
transport service level, this initiative is particularly relevant for cross-border operations between EU 
Member States. This level of harmonisation, mostly related to the methodological choices, input data 
and common rules for verification, cannot be effectively achieved by actions of individual Member 
States.  So  far  only  one  Member  State  has  established  a  dedicated  harmonised  methodological 
framework,  including  measures  to  incentivise  its  uptake.  However,  in  case  further  Member  States 
follow,  this  may  lead  to  very  diverse  calculation  and/or  disclosure  requirements  for  transport 
organisers and users, with additional costs and administrative burden for industries operating across 
borders. Actions at national level may also lower the general effectiveness of emissions accounting, 
as GHG emissions output data from transport services carried out in different countries would not be 
comparable, with a significant risk of creating confusion for users, thus providing different, or even 
negative incentives for entities offering transport services on the common European market. 

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The  objectives  of  the  proposed  initiative  cannot  be  effectively  achieved  by  actions  of  individual 
Member  States.  The  positive  impact  of  the  initiative  highly  depends  on  the  availability  of   
homogeneous  rules  allowing  for  the  comparability,  quality  and  adequate  granularity  of  GHG 
emissions  data  shared  on  the  market,  and  the  level  of  uptake  of  emissions  accounting  by 
stakeholders.  National  approaches  would  be  counterproductive  for  achieving  these  objectives, 
however,  relevant  actions  that  were  already  undertaken  by  some  Member  States  are  considered 
relatively  useful  for  increasing  the  general  capacity  of  companies  to  measure,  calculate  and  share 
emissions data, thus facilitating the future deployment of CountEmissions EU. 

(a)  Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

CountEmissions  EU  will  establish  uniform  principles  for  GHG  emissions  accounting  of  transport 
services across the Union, thus enabling stakeholders to calculate and disclose comparable emissions 

2 

 
 
data both at the Union and national level.  

While this initiative is expected to further stimulate the uptake of emissions accounting on national 
transport markets, it will be especially important for calculating emissions generated by cross border 
transport services, and specifically for stakeholders that operate in several Member States or/and at 
international scale (e.g. large transport intermediaries).   

It should be noted however, that since CountEmissions EU is conceived rather as an enabler for more 
specific  policy  measures  to  be  introduced  through  separate  means,  direct  quantification  of  these 
cross-border aspects was not possible.  

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty5 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

No 

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Member States are not prevented from taking appropriate measures in this policy area. However, so 
far  only  France  has  established  a  national  harmonised  methodological  framework  for  accounting 
emissions of transport services, including measures to incentivise its uptake. Article L. 1431-3 of the 
French  Transport  Code6  requires  that  all  entities  offering  transport  services  on  the  market  (freight 
and passenger, including all modes) calculate GHG emissions for each service departing from and/or 
ending in France, based on a specific methodology. The French Transport Code also provides that the 
information  on  emissions  should  be  reported  to  relevant  parties,  which  is  the  only  mandatory 
requirement of this type in the EU. In some other Member States there exist voluntary schemes and 
programmes  entailing  calculation  and  reporting  of  emissions  of  transport  operations,  such  as  
Topsector Logistics7 collaboration program between the Dutch government and businesses. 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

The  capability of companies  to calculate and  report GHG emissions does  not  spread equally across 
the  EU.  According  to  a  2021  analysis  undertaken  for  road  freight  carriers8,  this  capability  is 
significantly  higher  in  countries  implementing  specific  green  freight  programs,  such  as  the 
Netherlands, France and Austria. France, applying Article L. 1431-3 of the French Transport Code, is a 
particularly good example showing that a targeted legislation may lead to considerable results at the 
national level.  

Therefore,  the  problems  and  their  respective  causes  may  vary  between  particular  Member  States, 
depending on their involvement in this particular policy area.  

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

5 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  
6 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000031066016  
7 https://topsectorlogistiek.nl/  
8 Tölke, M. and McKinnon, A. (2021), Decarbonizing the operations of small and medium-sized road carriers in 
Europe. An analysis of their perspectives, motives, and challenges, Smart Freight Centre, Kühne Logistics 
University. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
The  problem  is  widespread,  as  no  national  approach  would  be  able  to  result  in  a  harmonised 
framework  of  accounting  emissions  for  transport  organisers  and  service  providers  operating 
internationally. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

No 

(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

In  the  stakeholders’  consultation,  the  participating  authorities  broadly  confirmed  the  idea  of  a 
harmonised framework for emissions accounting to be established at an EU level. Inputs from public 
authorities,  including  Member  states,  regional  and  infrastructure  public  authorities,  were  also 
collected through the  general consultation tools. One  Member State  in particular,  clearly indicated 
that  CountEmissions  EU  should  provide  rules  addressing  the  exchange  of  information  on  GHG 
emissions with an appropriate level of security and privacy. These inputs were duly considered and 
integrated in the elaboration of the proposal. 

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

The EU transport sector has a strong cross-border dimension, playing an important role for the free 
flow of people and goods on the EU internal market. Efficient transport services are key to meet the 
demand  of  transport  users,  support  the  growth  of  the  EU  economy  and  preserve  lifestyle  of  the 
citizens. At the same time, attention should be drawn to challenges related to environmental impacts 
from  transport,  still  growing  mostly  due  to  the  increase  of  freight  and  passenger  traffic  on  the 
European network. This initiative is therefore conceived as an enabler for the transport community 
to  facilitate  its  green  transition.  By  providing  for  better  transparency  on  the  performance  of 
transport services, it will lead to creating incentives for more sustainable solutions and innovation, 
giving customers more information for their own choices. As shown above, any national approaches 
would  be  highly  counterproductive  for  achieving  these  objectives,  bearing  significant  risk  of 
conflicting requirements and inconsistent methodologies and data. 

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

The initiative will entail the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other related external costs, 
stemming from the provision of transport services on the EU market. This reduction will  be mainly 
driven by the behavioural effects incentivising higher use of more sustainable transport options and 
optimised trips. The improvements in the comparability of GHG emissions data are also projected to 
result  in  increased  transparency,  credibility,  positive  effects  on  reputation  and  public  image  of 
transport  service  organisers  and  providers,  and  higher  levels  of  trust  between  transport  chain 
partners. 

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

The related savings in external costs have been estimated at EUR 0.7 billion for GHG emissions, EUR 
0.2  billion  for  air  pollution  and  EUR  0.6  billion  for  accidents,  relative  to  the  baseline  (business  as 
usual)  scenario  and  expressed  as  net  present  value  for  2025-2050  period  in  2022  prices.  These 
savings  have  been  accounted  in  particular  by  assuming  shifts  of  activity  between  modes  for  both 

4 

 
 
passengers  and  freight  transport  induced  by  better  knowledge  on  the  performance  of  transport 
services and data availability. Savings for the avoided fuel use of EUR 2.4 billion are expected to be 
realised by operators and passengers due to the reduced activity of fuel/energy intensive transport 
modes. 

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

In  general,  the  proposed  Regulation  does  not  replace  any  national  policy,  but  rather  provides 
complementary  and  harmonised  tools  and  enablers  for  more  specific  policies  to  be  undertaken  at 
EU, national and regional level. The interactions may be however observed with the French Transport 
Code  (above mentioned) and other voluntary schemes  exiting in certain EU countries, especially in 
terms of the choice of the emissions calculation methodology. However, this choice is necessary to 
ensure the achievement of the objectives of the initiative.  

(d)  Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

There will be no loss of competence of the Member States. 

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

The proposal is highly technical in nature,  and there is a likelihood that it  will have  to be regularly 
amended to reflect technical and legal developments, particularly concerning the common reference 
calculation method and the rules on input data, certification and verification. Therefore, a number of 
delegated  and  implementing  measures  are  also  planned.  These  will  focus  particularly  on  the 
technical specifications to implement the functional requirements. However, the Commission plans 
to  establish  a  horizontal 
implementation  guidelines  that  are  expected  to  facilitate  the 
implementation of the initiative on the market. 

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality? 

Choices  concerning  the  relevant  policy  measures  and  policy  option  forming  the  structure  of  this 
initiative were made in due consideration of the proportionality principle, thus resulting in the most 
balanced  approach  possible.  First,  CountEmissions  EU  envisages  the  use  of  the  existing  and  widely 
recognised standard EN ISO 14083:2023, as a reference methodology for calculating GHG emissions 
of transport services. This measure received significant support from the stakeholders participating in 
various consultation activities, and therefore it is expected to result in a very good acceptability and 
applicability  on  the  transport  market.  Secondly,  the 
initiative  provides  for  decentralised 
implementation of certain components, especially by allowing, under certain conditions, the use of 
external  databases  and  datasets  of  default  values  and  emission  factors,  as  well  as  emissions’ 
calculation tools operated by third parties. Thirdly, it sets rational requirements for the verification of 
GHG  emissions  data  and  calculation  processes,  exempting  SMEs,  unless  they  wish  to  undergo  the 
verification  on  a  voluntary  basis.  Finally,  by  including  the  binding  opt-in  application  of  the 
harmonised  framework,  this  proposal  limits  the  requirements only  to  those  entities  that  decide to 

5 

 
 
calculate  and  share  GHG  emissions  data.  This  aspect  is  important  for  stakeholders,  in  particular 
SMEs,  which  very  often  lack  capacity  to  effectively  start  accounting  emissions  at  the  level  of 
transport services in the short term, and therefore expect a more gradual approach addressing their 
specific situation and allowing them to take up the common framework over time. 

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

Choices  concerning  the  relevant  policy  measures  and  policy  option  forming  the  structure  of  this 
initiative were made in due consideration of the proportionality principle, thus resulting in the most 
balanced approach possible. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

Yes.  The  uptake  of  a  harmonised  approach  should  follow  homogeneous  rules  to  allow  for 
comparability and sufficient quality and granularity of data produced. It is vital to avoid attempts to 
solve the current patchwork of differing solutions by actions at national or sectoral level. 

(b)  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

The impact assessment evidenced that regulatory measures are necessary to achieve the objectives 
of the initiative. A regulation is the most appropriate instrument to ensure common implementation 
of the measures envisaged, while reducing the risk of distortion within the single market, which could 
result from differences into how EU Member States transpose the requirements into national law.  

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument og approach?) 

Not applicable 

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 

governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

Main  costs  resulting  from  the  proposed  intervention  are  borne  by  businesses.  They  include 
adjustments  costs  related  to  the  use  (adaptation  or  starting)  of  a  new  GHG  methodological 
framework  and  the  relevant  verification  activities  (EUR  1.5  billion),  as  well  as  administrative  costs 
stemming  from  the  certification  of  calculation  tools  and  quality  check  of  external  databases  of 
default  values  for  GHG  emission  intensity  (EUR  0.5  million).  Administrative  costs  have  also  been 
identified  for  national  accreditation  bodies  that  would  be  responsible  for  the  accreditation  of 
conformity  assessment  bodies  performing  the  verification  and  certification  activities  (EUR  0.1 
million).  Furthermore,  additional  adjustment  costs  have  been  accounted  for  national  statistical 
offices, especially  for  switching  to  unique  format of GHG  emission  output values  (EUR  0.1 million), 
and for the European Environmental Agency, related to the set-up and maintenance of EU databases 
for input data, as well as the quality check of external databases to be allowed under the initiative 

6 

 
 
(EUR 3.9 million).  

However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  initiative  provides  net  benefits  amounting  to  EUR  2.4  billion 
over the period 2025-2050, expressed at present value. 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

Not applicable 

7