1. EU Ecolabel – is the current business model “fit for use”?
DG ENV perspective
Michele Galatola
Coordinator of the EU Ecolabel
European Commission / DG Environment – Circular economy and eco-innovation unit

2. Issues at stake Scope Typology of label Criteria content Timing Costs
Marketing
Harmonisation of the implementation at MS level
Resources

3. Why an
EU Ecolabel?
Promotion of green products with regards to best practices on material sourcing, material selection, production, technology, durability, performance, reusability, recyclability and EoL environmental management (governments)
Access to targeted markets and resource efficiency (producers)
Brand positioning (retailers)
Support environmental friendly consumption and single market for green products (consumers)
Is the EU Ecolabel currently playing this role? Push and pull the market to environmental friendly production and consumption?
If NOT, why? Is there a real need for it? Or do we have better tools to achieve the same objectives?

4. Scope
Should the scope of the EU Ecolabel could be widened from environmental to sustainability issues (e.g.: to include social, ethical and safety aspects)?
Should the scope of the scheme could be extended to include intermediate product groups or should remain to consumer products/services?
Food/feed/drinks still out of scope?

5. Typology of label
Currently the EU Ecolabel is based on a pass/fail approach
The awarding process could move from “pass/fail” system to a “point” system, where products need to gain a certain minimum number of points to be awarded the label,
Currently targeting the best 10-20 % of the products available on the Community market in terms of environmental performance at the moment of their adoption. The EU Ecolabel could be transformed into a "graded label" covering all products and showing their relative environmental performance, instead of the current label rewarding top-class products.

6. Criteria content
Is the criteria development process the most appropriate one?
Are requirements (criteria) addressing the most relevant environmental impacts?
Are requirements too stringent?
Are requirements found that have unclear environmental benefits?
Are there too many individual requirements?
Is too much documentation required (cut the red-tape!)?
How can we rely less on self-declaration and more on testing?
Should the requirements be (also) based on life-cycle indicators?

7. Timing
Currently there is not a big difference between a revision and the development of new criteria. It takes on average between 30 and 36 months from when the work is kicked-off till the publication of the criteria on the Official Journal.
The time-span to obtain the EU Ecolabel could be shortened

8. Costs
Whilst the EU Ecolabel is cheaper than other equivalent ISO Type I level, it is perceived by stakeholders (industry and policy makers) as more expensive. Why?
Where can we cut costs?
Where additional costs should be added (mandatory on-site verification? Promotion of the scheme?)

9. Marketing
Lack of recognition (stakeholders, consumers, public authorities)
Who should do what?
What should be improved in the Regulation that would facilitate marketing activities?

10. Harmonisation
The working procedures of the Competent Bodies need to be harmonised (it is a Regulation)
Should the CB Forum be strengthened? If YES, how?
Should the flexibility in the implementation be reduced, e.g. by increasing the role of User Manuals?

11. Resources
How can we run the EU Ecolabel scheme with less resources (budget, people) both at Commission and (eventually) Member State level?
Less product groups?
Longer validity of the criteria?
Short criteria development process?
More straightforward criteria?
Modularised approach – appropriate re-use of criteria of key product groups/families (e.g. textiles, detergents, IT)?
Increase fees?

12. Thank you for your attention 12 12