There is no doubt that the current energy labelling system, introduced in Europe in the early 1990s, has been a success. It acted as an incentive to manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient products.

The dilemma

The problem is, however,  that whilst at one time products for sale did come from bands A through G, now many categories of product are only available as A. Since ever more efficient products came onto the market, a desperate Commission allowed A+, and we now see some goods marked as A++.

This has created problems. The value of the label has been lost. Consumers see the products as being in band A; the fact that there are one or two plus marks attached to the A is not perceived to make much difference to its 'A' status. The European Commission believes that as a result the incentive to manufacturers to design more efficient products has been lost.

The alternatives

Clearly we need to devise a system which will allow for future developments and which is understandable to consumers. There are a number of possible alternatives.

One is to abandon the existing label and move to something completely different, like the US Energy Star. But this would mean dispensing with a system and logo with which consumers are very familiar.

The second possibility is what is known as "re-calibration". This means you take products currently classed as A+ and re-calibrate them as B or even C (to allow for even more efficient products entering the market). In this situation, however, retailers are likely to be faced with irate customers demanding to know why a product sold to them as an A+ is now being sold as a B or a C. And re-calibration is only a temporary solution.

The European Domestic Appliances Association CECED (AMDEA is its UK member) has suggested keeping the well known coloured bands but replacing the letters with a numerical scale rising upwards from 1 (the least efficient) to 7 (the most efficient).

This allows a future scenario when a more efficient '8' can be introduced while at the same time the least efficient '1' is removed. So the scale moves from 1 to 7 to become 2 to 8 and eventually 3 to 9 and so on.

The proposal from CECED is logical and clear, but it hasn't been universally accepted. Some have argued that consumers know instinctively that 'A' means best, and that there will have to be a considerable effort to convert them to a numerical scale. 

To stay with A to G seems to imply regular re-calibration, with all the problems that brings. (What happens to stock kept from one year into the next?) One suggestion which has emerged from the consultation process is for the labels to carry an indication of the date at which the product was given its rating.

The European Commission intends to press ahead with the task of identifying the best way forward. It is expected to produce a document by mid-July which will summarize the discussion so far. By September or October the Commission's Labelling Committee will be working on this issue, leading to an amendment to the existing Labelling Directive 92/75/EEC. 

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---