EU consultation
13 submissions from 13 organizations told the European Commission what they think about this file. Here is what each of them said, in their own words.
The Commission lists 95 submissions on this file. Shown here: the 13 from organizations. Not shown, by design: submissions from private individuals, which we never publish, and anything filed since our last weekly refresh.
7 submissions from industry — companies and their trade associations — against 6 from civil society: NGOs, consumer organizations, environmental groups and trade unions.
Groupings use the respondent type each organization selected when filing. Counting submissions, not organizations — a body that filed twice is counted twice.
The file, right now
The consultation closed on 18 Jul 2024 — it ran from 25 Apr 2024.
How it got here
Also on the Commission’s pipeline for this file, with no date recorded: Reg del draft, Reg del.
13 positions
· · filed 9 Mar 2018 · source
Estimated savings, complexity & duty cycle Industry would caution on the increase of the estimated energy saving potential. Projecting PC usage and energy consumption growth to 2030 is meaningless; projections involving digital technology further than five years ahead provides no degree of accuracy or certainty.
Estimated savings, complexity & duty cycle Industry would caution on the increase of the estimated energy saving potential. Projecting PC usage and energy consumption growth to 2030 is meaningless; projections involving digital technology further than five years ahead provides no degree of accuracy or certainty.
· · filed 9 Mar 2018 · source
Estimated savings, complexity & duty cycle Industry would caution on the increase of the estimated energy saving potential. Projecting PC usage and energy consumption growth to 2030 is meaningless; projections involving digital technology further than five years ahead provides no degree of accuracy or certainty.
· · filed 9 Mar 2018 · source
Estimated savings, complexity & duty cycle Industry would caution on the increase of the estimated energy saving potential. Projecting PC usage and energy consumption growth to 2030 is meaningless; projections involving digital technology further than five years ahead provides no degree of accuracy or certainty.
Estimated savings, complexity & duty cycle Industry would caution on the increase of the estimated energy saving potential. Projecting PC usage and energy consumption growth to 2030 is meaningless; projections involving digital technology further than five years ahead provides no degree of accuracy or certainty.
Estimated savings, complexity & duty cycle Industry would caution on the increase of the estimated energy saving potential. Projecting PC usage and energy consumption growth to 2030 is meaningless; projections involving digital technology further than five years ahead provides no degree of accuracy or certainty.
· · filed 23 Feb 2018 · source
The inception impact assessment document provides a very good introduction to the topic, and we are very supportive of most of the statements made. The best policy option for consumers and the environment is indeed option 3. We would like to insist on three key points: 1/ Ecodesign requirements should be pursued, but thoroughly revised and reinforced to better reflect current technologies and practices.
· · filed 22 Feb 2018 · source
The inception impact assessment document provides a very good introduction to the topic, and we are very supportive of most of the statements made. The best policy option for consumers and the environment is indeed option 3. We would like to insist on three key points: 1/ Ecodesign requirements should be pursued, but thoroughly revised and reinforced to better reflect current technologies and practices.
The inception impact assessment document provides a very good introduction to the topic, and we are very supportive of most of the statements made. The best policy option for consumers and the environment is indeed option 3. We would like to insist on three key points: 1/ Ecodesign requirements should be pursued, but thoroughly revised and reinforced to better reflect current technologies and practices.
· · filed 21 Feb 2018 · source
The inception impact assessment document provides a very good introduction to the topic, and we are very supportive of most of the statements made. The best policy option for consumers and the environment is indeed option 3. We would like to insist on three key points: 1/ Ecodesign requirements should be pursued, but thoroughly revised and reinforced to better reflect current technologies and practices.
· · filed 20 Feb 2018 · source
The inception impact assessment document provides a very good introduction to the topic, and we are very supportive of most of the statements made. The best policy option for consumers and the environment is indeed option 3. We would like to insist on three key points: 1/ Ecodesign requirements should be pursued, but thoroughly revised and reinforced to better reflect current technologies and practices.
The inception impact assessment document provides a very good introduction to the topic, and we are very supportive of most of the statements made. The best policy option for consumers and the environment is indeed option 3. We would like to insist on three key points: 1/ Ecodesign requirements should be pursued, but thoroughly revised and reinforced to better reflect current technologies and practices.
The inception impact assessment document provides a very good introduction to the topic, and we are very supportive of most of the statements made. The best policy option for consumers and the environment is indeed option 3. We would like to insist on three key points: 1/ Ecodesign requirements should be pursued, but thoroughly revised and reinforced to better reflect current technologies and practices.
Method. Every quote is verbatim from the organization’s own submission to the European Commission, trimmed to its opening passage and never summarized by a model. Where a submission was filed in another EU language we show the English text the European Commission publishes alongside it, labeled on the quote; the original is one click away at the source. Groupings use the respondent type the organization itself selected when filing. We deliberately do not label anyone “supportive” or “opposed” — you read what they wrote and draw your own conclusion. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.