For buyers and authorities

Miljøcert compared with EMAS

EMAS is the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Each EMAS requirement is listed here next to the questions in the Miljøcert form, with what EMAS requires in addition.

In brief

All 29 EMAS items are assessed as met in our own assessment, with a source for each item. 26 are covered by the Miljøcert form and audit. For 3 (verification, audit cycle and EMAS registration), Norwegian procurement practice has found that they are not required when a tender asks for a system "based on" EMAS or equivalent. No item is assessed as not met.
The table shows each EMAS requirement, what Miljøcert asks about, and what EMAS requires in addition.
The status says whether the item is a required question, optional, part of the audit or not covered today. It is read from the form itself when the page is shown.
Each item has our assessment, approved or not approved. The reasons, and what Norwegian practice has said about the item, are behind (i).
The overview can be used when a supplier describes its environmental management measures, and as other documentation when a certificate could not be obtained by the deadline. The contracting authority decides whether that is sufficient.

EMAS requirements and Miljøcert

The requirements are taken from the EMAS Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009, with its annexes as amended in 2017 and 2018. Annex II Part A reproduces the requirements of ISO 14001:2015.

Required question

The company must answer before the report can be submitted. The answer can be a self-declaration.

In the audit

Done by the platform or the auditor, not as a question in the form.

EMAS only

Part of EMAS registration itself.

The status says where the item sits in Miljøcert, not that the EMAS requirement is met. Whether the item is approved is shown in the Assessment column. “Required question” means the company must answer before the report can be sent to Miljøcert.

How the EU has interpreted the requirements

The European Commission has assessed a Norwegian national scheme item by item against EMAS (Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2286, in Norwegian in EEA Supplement No 45/2020). The assessment shows which methods the Commission accepted as meeting the EMAS requirement, and which it did not fully accept. That interpretation is shown under each requirement, so it can be compared with what Miljøcert does. Every part the Commission accepted rested on criteria that a certifier checked at certification and each recertification, and several also relied on Norwegian law, including the Internal Control Regulations. The same topic as a self-declaration without checks is not what the Commission accepted. The assessment was made against the annexes as they stood before the 2017 amendments, so requirements added then, such as context, risks and opportunities and the life-cycle perspective, were not assessed. The assessment concerned that scheme. Miljøcert has not been assessed by the Commission.

Our assessment per item

Assessed: approved

Miljøcert meets the item, or Norwegian practice has found that it is not required.

Not approved

Miljøcert does not ensure the item today, and Norwegian practice has not found that it can be left out.

Each item has been assessed as approved or not approved. The assessment is Envirocert's own, made on 12 October 2026, and measured against the EMAS requirement, against the European Commission's assessment of another Norwegian scheme (2017/2286) and against decisions of the Norwegian Complaints Board for Public Procurement (KOFA) on what an environmental management system “based on ISO 14001/EMAS or equivalent” must contain.

An item is approved when Miljøcert meets it as the form and the audit actually enforce it, or when Norwegian practice has found that the element is not required. The audit counts where the auditor has a set criterion for the item, confirms the check with a description of the spot checks, and nonconformities must be closed before approval. That the decisions do not mention an element does not count as such a finding, and where there is real doubt the item is not approved. An item EMAS requires can therefore be approved even if Miljøcert does not ensure it, but only where a decision has actually taken a position. Press (i) for the reasons.

The assessment concerns requirements for a system “based on … or equivalent”, a description of environmental management measures, and other documentation under § 16-7 (3) of the Public Procurement Regulations. It does not make Miljøcert a certificate under § 16-7 (2), and a tender that requires EMAS registration is not met. No KOFA decision or court ruling has assessed Miljøcert.

Environmental review

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Documented environmental review: context, interested parties, direct and indirect aspects, and which are significantArt. 4(1)(a); Annex I points 1–5; Annex II Part B point 3	The company must answer whether it has a materiality analysis. “Yes” requires the analysis to be uploaded. If it chooses “No, make one for me”, the platform drafts a register of the direct and indirect environmental aspects, criteria for significance, risks and opportunities, past incidents and current practice, and the case cannot be marked ready until the draft is saved. The criteria for significance and the significant aspects are separate required fields, and both are published in the environmental statement.	Required question	Assessed: approved The materiality analysis is required: “Yes” requires an uploaded analysis, and “No, make one for me” a saved draft. The draft follows EMAS Annex I: the company's own direct and indirect environmental aspects, criteria for significance, a register of the significant ones, risks and opportunities, past incidents and current practice. Economic and social topics are left out. The criteria for significance are a separate required field. Open placeholders in the field stop “Ready for audit”, and the criteria are published in the environmental statement on the certificate page, which cannot be hidden. The auditor checks the analysis against a set criterion: the company's own aspects, published criteria and a register of the significant ones. A generic list of topics for the sector is a nonconformity. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The placeholder check does not cover the analysis draft itself. A draft with open fields for past incidents is therefore stopped by the auditor, not by the form. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has required a significance assessment under EMAS Annex I, but practice has not found that it can be left out either. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). Where the requirement was NS-ISO 14001, the contracting authority could reject a list of environmental aspects when the documents did not show that the mapping was in use and that the objectives built on it (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 41–42). The EU found that aspects identified at sector level were only partly in line with EMAS, and pointed to a method based on Annex I and to the certifier ensuring that other environmental aspects are identified (2017/2286 part 2). Both are now in Miljøcert: the draft follows Annex I, and the auditor checks that the aspects are the company's own. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2024/217 para. 41–42; EU 2017/2286 part 2; EMAS Annex I point 5	EMAS requires the analysis to be the company’s own. The auditor checks it against a set criterion before approval; the form can only require the fields to be filled in and the placeholders from the draft to be removed. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: Legal requirements were identified through a criterion and a public website on regulations, and the sector criteria could take account of a significant part of the potential environmental aspects. But aspects were identified at sector level, not for the individual organisation, and criteria for significance were missing. The Commission pointed to a method based on EMAS Annex I, and to the certifier ensuring that other environmental aspects, indicators and legal requirements are identified.
Risks and opportunities, past incidents and existing practices assessedAnnex I points 6–8; Annex II Part A 6.1.1	The materiality analysis is a required question. The draft the platform makes has its own sections on risks and opportunities with actions, past incidents and current practice, and the auditor checks the analysis against a set criterion for this point. The optional question on a due diligence assessment and the required question on environmental incidents (see emergency preparedness) come in addition.	Required question	Assessed: approved Risks and opportunities are part of the materiality analysis, which is required for everyone, with no revenue threshold. The field asks for risks and opportunities, past incidents and current practice, and the draft the platform makes has its own sections on all three, with actions. The auditor checks the item against a set criterion: risks and opportunities are linked to the aspects, legal requirements and context and have planned actions, and past incidents and current practice have been reviewed. At the three-year audit the assessment must also cover the incidents and nonconformities of the period. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The content is enforced by the auditor, not by the form: open placeholders in the draft do not stop “Ready for audit”. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed risks and opportunities or past incidents as a separate element. KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 says that a self-developed system need not contain the same elements as ISO 14001, but it concerned a requirement with no specific content and does not say which elements may be left out. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). Risks and opportunities were added to EMAS in 2017 and were not assessed in 2017/2286. Miljøcert now has an auditor criterion of its own for the item. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; EMAS Annex II part A 6.1.1	EMAS requires every organisation to assess risks and opportunities for environmental management, past incidents and existing procedures. An analysis the company uploads itself is checked by the auditor, not by the form. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: Risks and opportunities were not assessed: the requirement was added in 2017, after the annexes the Commission assessed against. Existing practices and past incidents were covered by the sector criteria and a first annual report with “actions taken”, without objection. The environmental review as a whole only partly matched, because aspects were identified at sector level and a method for significance was missing.

Leadership and responsibility

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Environmental policy committing to protect the environment, meet legal requirements and keep improvingAnnex II Part A 5.2	The company must answer whether it has an environmental policy. “Yes” requires the policy to be uploaded, and “No, make one for me” a saved draft. The policy text itself is required in both cases, must be adopted and dated by the managing director, and is published in the environmental statement on the certificate page.	Required question	Assessed: approved The policy text is required, whether the company already has a policy or writes it in the form, and it must be adopted and dated by the managing director. Open placeholders such as “[date]” and “[name]” stop “Ready for audit”. The policy is published in the environmental statement on the certificate page, which cannot be hidden, and the statement cannot be published without it. The auditor checks the policy against a set criterion: it commits to protecting the environment, including preventing pollution, to meeting legal requirements and to continual improvement, and it is dated and confirmed by the managing director. An unsigned AI draft is a nonconformity. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. That the policy is set by management is ensured by the auditor's check, not by a separate confirmation in the form. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed the environmental policy as a separate element. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). Both ISO 14001 and EMAS require an environmental policy set by top management. An account of the environmental policy showing a “systematic approach to the environment” did not meet the requirement when it was not apparent that the system was “based on” a standard (KOFA 2022/909 paras. 43–44): the policy was not enough on its own. The EU accepted this item for another Norwegian scheme because a criterion required an environmental policy “in accordance with EMAS Annex II point A.2”, together with signed terms and commitments and an annual report approved by management (2017/2286 part 3). Miljøcert now has a similar criterion that the auditor checks, and the policy is published in the statement every year. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2022/909 para. 43–44; EMAS Annex II part A 5.2; EU 2017/2286 part 3	EMAS requires the policy to be set by top management and to contain the three commitments. The auditor checks both; the form only stops open placeholders such as “[date]” and “[name]”. EU interpretation – accepted method: A criterion required the organisation to set an environmental policy “in accordance with EMAS Annex II point A.2” and objectives. The Commission accepted this in combination with signed terms and commitments, the criteria and the annual climate and environmental report with an action plan, approved by management in its annual review.
Top management takes responsibility for and follows up the management systemAnnex II Part A 5.1	Self-declaration that management stands behind the certification, with the managing director's name, and a management review before the first approval, confirmed with name and role, in which management also confirms who the environmental manager is. Both confirmations must come from the company itself: through the link the system sends to the contact person or the contact address in the company details, or as a user in the company. If the consultant ticks the box, the case cannot be marked ready, and a logged-in consultant or auditor cannot confirm through the link. The auditor sees the recipient and when the link was sent and answered. Between audits the management review is confirmed in the annual review.	Required question	Assessed: approved Before the first approval the form requires a management review with a date, participants, status and decisions, a named environmental manager and two confirmations: that the certification is anchored in management, and that management has read and confirmed the review and appointed the environmental manager. The confirmations count only when the company gives them itself: through the link the system sends, or as a user in the company who is not a consultant and is not acting as the customer. The system rejects the consultant's own inbox, addresses in the workspace and addresses of consultants, auditors and administrators on the platform, and the auditor sees the recipient, where the address came from and when the link was sent and answered. If the consultant ticks the box, or someone changes the content afterwards, the case cannot be marked ready. An address the company did not give itself, including one from the old filling-in link for migrated customers, is marked as unverified. If the confirmation came through the link to an unverified address, the approval is blocked until the auditor has entered “Check with the managing director”. The check has fixed requirements: the managing director is contacted as listed in the Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities, by phone, in a meeting or by e-mail on the company's own domain, never through the unverified address or contact details the consultant entered. The auditor chooses the channel, enters the managing director's name and the date, and confirms both that the contact details did not come from the form or the consultant, and that the managing director confirmed the policy, the objectives, the management review and the appointment of the environmental manager. Free text is not accepted. A missing check is a nonconformity under the criterion, and the case cannot be approved. The check is recorded in the approval in the case history. Name, source and channel are the auditor's declaration, not something the system verifies, but the criteria and the record are fixed. Between audits the annual review requires an administrator in the company who is not acting as the customer. Norwegian practice: The Appeals Board describes environmental objectives anchored in management as something ISO 14001 requires (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; 2024/217 para. 36). A self-developed system need not have the same elements, but it must be set out in documents that show the environmental objectives (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30). A compliance table in which the supplier had answered “Yes”, without specific information on objectives and procedures, could be rejected (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 40–43). The EU accepted this item for another Norwegian scheme because several things worked together: top management signed the terms, management carried out checks several times a year and in the annual management review, and an appointed environmental manager reported to management (2017/2286 part 1). There the certifier checked the management signature. Miljøcert now has a documented auditor check of the management confirmation with fixed criteria, a record and a nonconformity when it is missing. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36 and 40–43; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; EU 2017/2286 part 1	EMAS requires top management itself to demonstrate commitment, for example through the management review. The platform does not know whether the recipient address belongs to management: the consultant fills in the contact address in the form. An address the company did not give itself is therefore marked as unverified, and the approval is then blocked until the auditor has entered a check with the managing director. The auditor contacts the managing director as listed in the Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities, by phone, in a meeting or by e-mail on the company's own domain, never through contact details the consultant entered, and records the channel, the name, the date and what the managing director confirmed. A missing check is a nonconformity. Name and source are the auditor's declaration; the system does not compare them with the register. EU interpretation – accepted method: Top management signed the terms and commitments, and a criterion required the organisation to set an environmental policy. Management carried out checks repeatedly during the year and in the annual management review, and an appointed environmental manager reported to management. The assessment also referred to the HSE system required by Norwegian law.
Roles and responsibilities assigned, and one or more representatives appointed by top managementAnnex II Part A 5.3; Part B point 2	The company gives the environmental manager by name and position, and must answer whether it has an environmental management procedure; the procedure must be uploaded or saved as a draft. The draft made in the form is not made until the environmental manager is filled in, and names them. How the environmental work is organised (roles, responsibilities and reporting to management) is a separate required field that is published in the environmental statement.	Required question	Assessed: approved The environmental manager is a required field, and how the environmental work is organised (roles, responsibilities and reporting to management) is a separate required field published in the statement. Open placeholders in the organisation and in the draft environmental management procedure stop “Ready for audit”. The auditor checks that the procedure names the environmental manager with tasks, authority and reporting, and that the appointment is confirmed by management itself. EMAS also requires top management itself to appoint the environmental manager. This is shown through the confirmation in the management review, given by the company itself (see management). The name is fixed: the form is locked while the case is under audit, and if the environmental manager changes, the confirmation becomes invalid. If the confirmation came through the link to an unverified address, the approval is blocked until the auditor has entered “Check with the managing director”, with contact as listed in the Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities and never through contact details the consultant entered. The auditor must tick that the managing director confirmed the appointment of the environmental manager, and the criterion for roles says that the check must cover the named environmental manager and that a missing check is a nonconformity. The check is recorded in the approval in the case history. Norwegian practice: No decision has found that roles and responsibilities can be missing. Under a requirement to “have established an environmental management system”, the information about an employee dedicated to health, safety and environmental work did not show that the supplier “works systematically to reduce the organisation's environmental impact” (KOFA 2018/207 paras. 16 and 22): the role was not enough, but the case does not say it can be missing. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). KOFA has not decided whether roles are among the most important requirements. A designated representative is specific to EMAS, but ISO 14001 also requires roles, responsibilities and authorities to be assigned and known. The EU accepted this item for another Norwegian scheme because, in addition to the legal duty, the scheme required a representative to be appointed “similarly to EMAS”, with an organisation chart and written instructions (2017/2286 part 6). Miljøcert requires a named environmental manager, and that top management itself has confirmed the appointment, checked by the auditor against fixed criteria. Basis: KOFA 2018/207 para. 16 and 22; KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; EU 2017/2286 part 6	EMAS requires top management itself to appoint representatives with defined authority who report to management. The form asks for a name and a position, and the auditor checks the authority in the procedure. That management itself made the appointment rests on the confirmation in the management review, given through the link the system sends, and on the auditor's check with the managing director when the address is unverified. That check must expressly cover the appointment of the environmental manager and does not go through the consultant (see management). The environmental manager's name is not entered in the check; it follows from the form, which is locked during the audit. EU interpretation – accepted method: Management is required by law to provide enough staff resources for HSE work, and the scheme also required a representative to be appointed “similarly to EMAS”, with written instructions and an organisation chart of key roles. Training was mandatory, had to cover the external environment and was checked orally by the certifier, and employees had to know the annual report and take part in improvement work.
Competence, awareness and active involvement of employeesAnnex II Part A 7.1–7.3; Part B point 6	The company must answer whether it has a plan for training employees in environmental work, and the plan must be uploaded or saved as a draft. The form also asks for training given (date, topic and participants) and how employees or the safety representative took part in environmental work. The annual review asks for the training in the year.	Required question	Assessed: approved The training plan is required. In addition, three fields are required: training given, with date, topic and participants, how employees or the safety representative took part in environmental work, and how objectives and procedures have been made known internally. Open placeholders in the fields stop “Ready for audit”. The annual review cannot be submitted without the training of the year. The auditor checks against a set criterion: training, including on the external environment, has been given and recorded with date, topic and participants, and involvement is described. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Norwegian practice: The system must be in use by the tender deadline, and employees must know the system and how to use it (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30). No decision has required formal employee involvement, as EMAS does. Where the EU accepted this item for another Norwegian scheme, training was mandatory, had to cover the external environment and was checked orally by the certifier (2017/2286 part 6). Miljøcert now records training given and involvement, and the auditor checks them. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; EU 2017/2286 part 6	EMAS requires training that has actually been given, and that employees or their representatives take part in environmental work, including the environmental review. The training and involvement are described in free text, without attachments that show them, and the auditor checks them against a set criterion. EU interpretation – accepted method: Management is required by law to provide enough staff resources for HSE work, and the scheme also required a representative to be appointed “similarly to EMAS”, with written instructions and an organisation chart of key roles. Training was mandatory, had to cover the external environment and was checked orally by the certifier, and employees had to know the annual report and take part in improvement work.
Documented information is created, updated and controlledAnnex II Part A 7.5	The case cannot be marked ready for audit until each required procedure is uploaded or saved as a draft. The form, procedures and attachments are stored on the platform. The version sent for audit is frozen, the documents cannot be deleted while the case is under audit, and the auditor sees what has changed since.	In the audit	Assessed: approved The case cannot be marked ready for audit until each required procedure exists as a document: an uploaded document for “Yes”, saved text for “No, make one for me”. Open placeholders in the main text fields, in the environmental management procedure and in the legal register stop “Ready for audit”. The auditor can only approve a case that has been marked ready, and the documents cannot be deleted while the case is under audit. The platform stores and versions what is submitted, and the version sent for audit is frozen. The auditor checks the documents against a set criterion: they are dated, have an owner, are available to those who use them, and are approved by the managing director or someone authorised. An AI draft that has not been reviewed is a nonconformity, and outdated versions must not be in use. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The approval is written to the case history with the spot checks. Document control is checked at certification and the three-year audit, not in the annual review. Cases approved before the requirements came in on 11 October 2026 are checked against them only at the next three-year audit. Norwegian practice: The system must appear in one or more documents setting out objectives, procedures and possibly a method for improvement (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; 2024/217 para. 36). A compliance table in which the supplier had answered “Yes”, without specific information on objectives and procedures, could be rejected (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 40–43). Procedures that were merely referred to were not enough either (KOFA 2020/609 para. 56). The method the EU accepted for another Norwegian scheme rested on an exhaustive list of required documents, and the certifier had to check that the documentation was filed in a simple and systematic way (2017/2286 part 7). Miljøcert now has a fixed list of required documents, and a “Yes” without a document stops the case before the audit. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36 and 40–43; KOFA 2020/609 para. 56; EU 2017/2286 part 7	EMAS requires document control to cover all EMAS requirements and to be maintained between audits. The auditor checks date, owner, availability and approval at certification and the three-year audit, not in the annual review, and the case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed. EU interpretation – accepted method: An exhaustive list of documents required for certification, and the certifier had to check that the documentation and the HSE system were filed in a simple and systematic way and that the organisation knew how to find its way in it. The documents could be shown at the certification meeting instead of being uploaded. For EMAS registration the documentation must cover all EMAS requirements.

Legal compliance

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Register of applicable environmental legal requirements and procedures that ensure complianceAnnex I point 3; Annex II Part A 6.1.3; Part B point 4	The company must answer whether it has an overview of the environmental legal requirements that apply to it, and the overview must be uploaded or saved as a draft. In addition, a short account of the main legal requirements and how they are complied with.	Required question	Assessed: approved The overview of environmental legal requirements is required and counts only with an uploaded document or a saved draft, and a short account of the main legal requirements must be filled in. The draft the platform makes is a register of the company's own legal requirements and permits, with fields for the company to fill in: number or agreement, valid until, whether the requirement applies, and date. Open placeholders in the draft stop “Ready for audit”. The auditor checks the register against a set criterion: the company's own legal requirements, permits and registrations without open placeholders, with who follows them up and how often. At the three-year audit the register must be up to date. A nonconformity on legal requirements can only be closed with an approved file. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has ruled on whether an environmental management system must include an overview of legal requirements. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). Legal requirements are a requirement in both EMAS and ISO 14001. Where the supplier had to describe how environmental requirements set by the authorities were followed up, pointing to an employee responsible for regulatory compliance was not enough (KOFA 2018/207 paras. 20–23). The EU found that the criteria of another Norwegian scheme, together with a public website on regulations, gave a good overview of legal requirements, but the legal compliance part was still only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286 part 4). Miljøcert now has a register of the company's own requirements, checked by the auditor. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2018/207 para. 20–23; EU 2017/2286 part 4	EMAS requires a register of the organisation's own legal requirements and permits and a description of how compliance can be shown. The draft is a register of the company's own requirements, and open fields stop “Ready for audit”. The auditor checks the register, and a nonconformity on legal requirements is closed only with a file. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: The criteria together with a public website on regulations gave a good overview of legal requirements. Legal requirements that were criteria were checked by the certifier, and the managing director signed an annual HSE checklist. For other legal requirements a nonconformity procedure was enough. The Commission pointed to the certifier being a generalist, and to compliance with all environmental law, evidence on request and checks by an accredited or licensed third party every year (every second year for small and medium-sized enterprises).
Compliance with environmental law, including permits, documented and checkedAnnex II Part A 9.1.2; Part B point 4; Art. 4(4)	Self-declarations: the company meets applicable legal requirements, has no ongoing inspection cases and is registered in the mandatory take-back schemes. In addition, a procedure for evaluating whether legal requirements are met, uploaded or saved as a draft. The form also asks for the evaluation itself: each legal requirement and permit as met or not met, with actions, the date and who evaluated it.	Required question	Assessed: approved The form requires a procedure for evaluating compliance and the evaluation itself: each legal requirement and permit as met or not met, with actions, the date and who evaluated it. Open placeholders in the evaluation stop “Ready for audit”. In the three-year round the date is not carried over from the previous round, and it must fall after the previous approval. In the annual review the statement requires the date of the evaluation, and it cannot be in the future or before the period. The auditor checks against a set criterion: each legal requirement has a dated evaluation with evidence, and all are met. A requirement that is not met is a nonconformity and can only be closed with an approved file. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The annual review stores the date and status, not the result per legal requirement. The auditor checks that at the three-year audit. Norwegian practice: Formal certification is not required for “based on”, but the system must meet the underlying requirements of the system it is based on (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27). Where the requirement asked for a description of how environmental requirements set by the authorities are followed up, pointing to one employee responsible for regulatory compliance was not enough (KOFA 2018/207 paras. 20–23). A compliance table in which the supplier had answered “Yes”, without specific information on objectives and procedures, could be rejected (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 40–43). For another Norwegian scheme, the Commission found only a partial match, even though the certifier checked the legal requirements that were criteria and the managing director signed an annual HSE checklist (2017/2286 part 4). Miljøcert now requires a dated evaluation per legal requirement with evidence, checked by the auditor, not just tick boxes. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2018/207 para. 20–23; KOFA 2024/217 para. 40–43; EU 2017/2286 part 4	EMAS requires a documented evaluation showing that all environmental law is complied with, checked by an environmental verifier. In Miljøcert the auditor checks the evaluation and the evidence, and a requirement that is not met is a nonconformity closed only with a file. The annual review stores the date, not the result per legal requirement. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: The criteria together with a public website on regulations gave a good overview of legal requirements. Legal requirements that were criteria were checked by the certifier, and the managing director signed an annual HSE checklist. For other legal requirements a nonconformity procedure was enough. The Commission pointed to the certifier being a generalist, and to compliance with all environmental law, evidence on request and checks by an accredited or licensed third party every year (every second year for small and medium-sized enterprises).

Objectives and improvement

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Environmental objectives and an action plan with responsibilities, resources and deadlinesAnnex II Part A 6.2; Part B point 5	Up to five objectives, each with actions and a deadline. Objective 1 must be filled in. Each objective is linked to figures in the climate accounts or to an own indicator, with a target value, and the baseline is calculated from the figures. Suggestions can be drafted from the company's own figures, and the template asks for an environmental result with an indicator, a significant aspect, an owner and resources. The annual review requires the year's value for each current objective.	Required question	Assessed: approved Objective 1 with a description and a deadline is required. Each objective that is filled in must be linked to figures in the climate accounts or to an own indicator, and have a target value. The link must give one unit, and the baseline is calculated from the figures in the form or given with a unit for an own indicator. If any of this is missing, or there are open placeholders in the objectives, “Ready for audit” is stopped. The templates for objectives say that an objective is an environmental result and never an action, and ask for an indicator, a significant aspect, an owner and resources. The auditor checks against a set criterion: each objective concerns an environmental result and is linked to a significant aspect, it is measurable with a link, a baseline and a target value, the indicator measures what the objective says, and the actions have an owner, resources and a deadline. An action set up as an objective is a nonconformity. At the three-year audit the auditor checks that the objectives from the previous round were followed up with each year's value. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Between audits the annual review requires the year's value for each current objective: a linked objective takes it from the year's climate accounts, and an own indicator is entered by hand. Owner and resources have no fields of their own; they rest on the auditor's criterion. Norwegian practice: Environmental objectives must appear in documents, also in a self-developed system (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; 2024/217 para. 36). A contracting authority could reject a supplier whose documents did not show whether it had set objectives based on its own mapping (2024/217 paras. 41–42). The method the EU accepted for another Norwegian scheme was a mandatory annual report with objectives and an action plan, due by 1 April, compared with the previous year and checked by the certifier at certification and each recertification (2017/2286 part 5). Miljøcert now has an auditor criterion for the objectives, links each objective to figures with a target value and requires the year's value in the annual review. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36 and 41–42; KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; EU 2017/2286 part 5	EMAS requires objectives for actual environmental performance, with responsibilities and resources. Owner and resources have no fields of their own; the auditor checks them, and an action set up as an objective is a nonconformity. EU interpretation – accepted method: A mandatory annual climate and environmental report, due by 1 April, with objectives and an action plan. Performance was compared with the previous year, and the report was reviewed in the annual management review and checked by the certifier at certification and each recertification. The Commission accepted that this ensures improvement for the aspects the criteria cover.
Continual improvement of environmental performance, not only of the systemArt. 1; Annex II Part A 10.3; Part B point 1	A draft environmental management procedure made in the form covers continual improvement, and a separate improvement plan is optional. The annual review requires an internal audit, a management review with decisions and the year's value for each objective. At the three-year audit the auditor sees the changes since the last approval, the statements for each year side by side and each objective with its baseline, the value each year and the target value.	Required question	Assessed: approved The environmental management procedure is required, and the draft has its own section on continual improvement: results are compared with the objectives and the previous year, and a figure that does not improve gets actions. At the first approval the auditor checks that the procedure describes the improvement work. At the three-year audit the auditor assesses improvement on the significant aspects against the figures: the objectives' baseline, the value each year and the target value, and the core indicators in the statements, which the auditor sees side by side. The basis for the comparison is enforced by the system: the baseline is calculated from the figures in the form, and the annual review requires the year's value for each current objective. An objective or core indicator that has not improved must be explained and have been given actions, and without improvement on any significant aspect it is a nonconformity. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Such a nonconformity can be closed with an answer from the company that the auditor accepts, so the remaining risk lies in the auditor's judgement within a documented criterion. Norwegian practice: ISO 14001 requires a method for continual improvement, and the system must be set out in documents showing objectives, procedures and “any method for improvement” (KOFA 2024/217 para. 36). A compliance table in which the supplier had answered “Yes”, without specific information on objectives and procedures, could be rejected (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 40–43). A self-developed system need not have the same elements, but it must be documented and implemented (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30). The method the EU accepted for another Norwegian scheme was a mandatory annual report with an action plan, compared with the previous year and checked by the certifier (2017/2286 part 5). Miljøcert now compares with the objectives' baseline, each year's value and the target value and with the statements for each year at the three-year audit, checked by the auditor. Basis: KOFA 2024/217 para. 36 and 40–43; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23; EU 2017/2286 part 5	EMAS requires environmental performance to actually improve, shown with figures year by year. At the three-year audit the auditor assesses improvement against the objectives' baseline, the value each year and the target value, and against the core indicators in the statements. Without improvement on any significant aspect it is a nonconformity. EU interpretation – accepted method: A mandatory annual climate and environmental report, due by 1 April, with objectives and an action plan. Performance was compared with the previous year, and the report was reviewed in the annual management review and checked by the certifier at certification and each recertification. The Commission accepted that this ensures improvement for the aspects the criteria cover.

Operations and procurement

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Environmental requirements in procurement, communicated to suppliers and contractorsAnnex II Part A 8.1; Annex I point 4.2	Two questions: a purchasing procedure consistent with the environmental policy, and a procedure for evaluating hired labour, subcontractors and the value chain.	Required question	Assessed: approved The procedures for purchasing and for evaluating hired labour, subcontractors and the value chain are required and count only with an uploaded document or a saved draft. The auditor checks against a set criterion: environmental criteria for significant purchases, including hired labour, the requirements communicated to suppliers and subcontractors, and a life-cycle perspective. The need to inform customers about environmental impacts in transport, use and end of life must have been considered, and where the company develops products or services, the environmental requirements must be part of the development. The procedure must be shown in use, for example by a contract, order or supplier evaluation. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The draft the platform makes has the life-cycle perspective only for purchasing. Information to customers and product development therefore often become nonconformities the company must correct. Norwegian practice: Procedures must be written down and in use (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30). A compliance table in which the supplier had answered “Yes”, without specific information on objectives and procedures, could be rejected (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 40–43). Where the requirement covers the supply chain, the measures must bind those who actually deliver (KOFA 2023/377 paras. 34 and 39–41). The method the EU accepted for another Norwegian scheme rested, for purchasing, on criteria that had to be met before a certificate was issued: environmental criteria for all significant purchases, influencing suppliers, and informing customers and suppliers (2017/2286 part 8). Miljøcert now has the same topics in the auditor's criterion. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 40–43; KOFA 2023/377 para. 34 and 39–41; EU 2017/2286 part 8	EMAS also requires a life-cycle perspective, and that the organisation considers the need to provide information on impacts in transport, use and end of life. The auditor checks both and that the procedure is in use; the draft covers the life-cycle perspective only for purchasing. EU interpretation – accepted method: Documented procedures for meeting the HSE objectives, a nonconformity procedure, an updated risk assessment with an action plan and specific procedures for hazardous products in some sectors. For purchasing: environmental criteria for all significant purchases, influencing suppliers and informing customers and suppliers. The Commission accepted the procedures “in combination with” the Norwegian Internal Control Regulations and the related information streams.
Operational control of the significant environmental aspectsAnnex II Part A 8.1	Questions on a procedure for circular economy, reuse and waste, and on an energy management procedure. The procedures must be uploaded or saved as drafts.	Required question	Assessed: approved The procedures for circular economy and waste and for energy management are required and count only with an uploaded document or a saved draft, and the assessment of environmental incidents is required. The auditor checks against a set criterion: each significant environmental aspect has operational control in a procedure suited to the business, with operating criteria, its use is shown, for example by the waste and energy figures or by records, and planned changes to operations have been assessed. At the three-year audit the auditor checks that the procedures were followed up in the internal audits of the period. The nonconformity procedure is part of the environmental management procedure (see nonconformities), and purchasing and hired services are covered under procurement. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Norwegian practice: An environmental management system must have procedures that help achieve the environmental objectives, set out in documents, implemented and known to employees (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; 2024/217 para. 36). A compliance table in which the supplier had answered “Yes”, without specific information on objectives and procedures, could be rejected (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 40–43). A reference to internal procedures that were not attached was not enough either (KOFA 2020/609 para. 56). The EU accepted operational control for another Norwegian scheme because its criteria required documented procedures, a nonconformity procedure and a risk assessment with an action plan, “in combination with” the Norwegian Internal Control Regulations (2017/2286 part 8). Miljøcert now requires the procedures, the nonconformity procedure and the risk assessment, and the auditor checks that the procedures are in use. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36 and 40–43; KOFA 2020/609 para. 56; EU 2017/2286 part 8	EMAS requires control of every process linked to the organisation's own significant aspects, not fixed topics. The auditor assesses control of each significant aspect, with operating criteria and evidence of use. EU interpretation – accepted method: Documented procedures for meeting the HSE objectives, a nonconformity procedure, an updated risk assessment with an action plan and specific procedures for hazardous products in some sectors. For purchasing: environmental criteria for all significant purchases, influencing suppliers and informing customers and suppliers. The Commission accepted the procedures “in combination with” the Norwegian Internal Control Regulations and the related information streams.
Emergency preparedness for environmental incidents, tested where practicableAnnex II Part A 6.1.1 and 8.2	The company must answer whether it has assessed the risk of environmental incidents such as spills, fire and leaks, and the assessment must be uploaded or saved as a draft. An optional procedure for preparedness and continuity covers operating in a crisis.	Required question	Assessed: approved The assessment of the risk of environmental incidents such as spills, fire and leaks is required and counts only with an uploaded document or a saved draft. The draft has possible incidents, prevention, measures and alerting, a section on testing preparedness and a section on review at least every year and always after an incident or exercise. The auditor checks against a set criterion: the placeholders are replaced with the company's own incidents, measures and alerting, preparedness is tested where practicable or the reason is given, and employees, and hired workers where relevant, have been informed and trained. At the three-year audit the assessment must have been reviewed and updated where needed during the period, always after incidents or exercises, and tested with a date. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Open placeholders in the draft do not stop “Ready for audit”, and no field collects the date of the last test. Both rest on the auditor. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed emergency preparedness as part of an environmental management system. KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 says that a self-developed system need not contain the same elements as ISO 14001, but the case concerned a requirement with no specific content. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). The method the EU accepted for another Norwegian scheme was Norwegian emergency preparedness law supplemented by a mandatory criterion for an updated risk assessment of the working and external environment with an action plan, checked at certification, recertification and the annual management review (2017/2286 part 9). Miljøcert now has an auditor criterion for testing, training and regular review. Basis: KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; EU 2017/2286 part 9	EMAS requires preparedness to be reviewed regularly and tested where practicable. The auditor rejects a draft with open placeholders and checks testing and training, and at the three-year audit that the assessment was reviewed during the period. The management review does not cover the assessment. EU interpretation – accepted method: Norwegian emergency preparedness law, supplemented by a mandatory updated risk assessment of the working and external environment with an action plan and sector requirements on preparedness, checked at certification, recertification and the annual management review.

Monitoring and audit

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Monitoring and measurement of environmental performanceAnnex II Part A 9.1.1	Fields for energy, water, waste and travel are used to calculate a greenhouse gas inventory. Each of the seven core indicators must be given as measured, calculated or not relevant, with a figure, a method or an explanation. On approval the emission figures for the reporting year are locked, and the annual review requires an inventory for the previous year.	Required question	Assessed: approved Greenhouse gas inventory and waste are required sections, and each of the seven core indicators (energy, water, waste, materials, transport, land use and emissions to air) must be given as measured, calculated or not relevant. Measured or calculated requires figures, calculated requires a method, and “not relevant” requires an explanation, as EMAS Annex IV Part C point 2(a) allows. Hazardous waste must always be given, waste must be broken down by type, and refrigerants must be given as numbers. The case cannot be marked ready until this is in place. On approval the figures for the reporting year are locked, and the annual review requires an inventory for the previous year. The auditor checks against a set criterion: each “not relevant” is justified against the materiality analysis, and each significant aspect has a measured or calculated figure from a verifiable source (invoice, meter or the operator's statement). At the three-year audit the figures must not be carried over unchanged from the previous round. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The platform does not block figures that have been carried over. That rests on the auditor. Norwegian practice: None of the decisions we have read in full says that measurement can be missing. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). EMAS requires procedures “to check, on a regular basis, the key characteristics of its operations that can have a significant environmental impact” (Annex II, as set out in 2017/2286 part 10). Under a requirement for ISO 14001 the contracting authority must compare with the requirements of the standard (KOFA 2024/217 para. 34), and “measuring results” is among the examples of how environmental management can be systematised (KOFA 2023/978 para. 32). The EU accepted monitoring for another Norwegian scheme because the HSE audit under the Internal Control Regulations, risk analysis and nonconformity handling were reviewed by management, with a mandatory annual climate and environmental report as a supplement (2017/2286 part 10). Miljøcert now requires an annual greenhouse gas inventory and an internal audit between the three-year audits, and the auditor checks that each significant aspect has a measured or calculated figure from a verifiable source. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2024/217 para. 34; KOFA 2023/978 para. 32; EU 2017/2286 part 10; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 a	EMAS requires ongoing measurement of the significant aspects, with new figures every year. An indicator can be set to “not relevant” with an explanation referring to the environmental review (Annex IV Part C point 2(a)). The auditor checks the explanation, the source of the figures and that they are not carried over from the previous round; the platform does not block the last of these. EU interpretation – accepted method: The Commission did not assess monitoring as a separate item. Checking rested on the HSE audit under the Norwegian Internal Control Regulations, risk analysis and checking and correcting nonconformities, with sector checklists, and the results were reviewed by management. The annual climate and environmental report with indicators was a supplement with “additional documentation” on objectives and results.
Internal audit of the whole system at least every three years, and of performance and legal compliance every yearArt. 4(1)(c), 6(2)(a) and 9; Annex III	Before the first approval the form asks for an internal audit that has been carried out: the date, who carried it out and that they do not own the areas, what was audited, and findings and conclusion. Between the three-year audits the annual review requires an internal audit carried out on the platform, otherwise the certificate becomes invalid. The Miljøcert audit every three years is an external review.	Required question	Assessed: approved Before the first approval the form requires an internal audit that has been carried out: the date, who carried it out and that they do not own the areas, what was audited, and findings and conclusion. The date cannot be in the future or more than twelve months old when the case is marked ready, and open placeholders from the AI checklist in the findings or the scope stop “Ready for audit”. In the three-year round the date, auditor, independence and findings are cleared, and the date must fall after the previous approval. Between the three-year audits the annual review requires an internal audit, and an audit with open placeholders does not count. The auditor checks against a set criterion: the audit is independent, covers at least the most significant aspects, procedures, objectives and legal requirements, is from the last twelve months, and the programme covers the whole system within three years. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Miljøcert's audit every three years is an external check and comes in addition. Norwegian practice: Where the system had to be “subject to regular audit”, the requirement was not met when the board could not see that the environmental management system had been audited (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 21 and 26). In a case on quality management under ISO 9001, regular audit was documented by audits in two consecutive years, named responsible employees and an audit plan (KOFA 2018/219 para. 46). The method the EU accepted for another Norwegian scheme was the annual HSE audit with sector checklists, risk analysis and a nonconformity procedure, reviewed by management, and the certifier had to confirm that the audit had been carried out (2017/2286 part 10). Miljøcert uses the same method: the auditor confirms that the internal audit was carried out, against a set criterion. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 21, 23 and 26–27; KOFA 2018/219 para. 46; EU 2017/2286 part 10	EMAS requires an audit programme covering the whole system, with written reports. The form and the annual review ask for one audit at a time, with findings (“No findings” counts as a finding) and a conclusion. That the programme covers the whole system within three years is checked by the auditor against the criterion and confirmed with spot checks; the platform has no field for the programme. Small organisations may get four years instead of three (Art. 7). EU interpretation – accepted method: The annual HSE audit under the Norwegian Internal Control Regulations, with sector checklists and templates, risk analysis and checking and correcting nonconformities under a mandatory nonconformity procedure based on the same regulations. The results were reviewed by management, and at certification and recertification the certifier had to confirm that the audit had been carried out as required. For EMAS registration the audit must cover all EMAS requirements.
Management review of the management system at planned intervalsAnnex II Part A 9.3	Before the first approval and in the three-year round the form asks for the management review: the date, participants, the status of objectives and actions, environmental performance and core indicators against the objectives, nonconformities, the internal audit, legal requirements, changes in context, aspects and risks, resources and enquiries, the decisions, and the name and role of the manager who confirmed it. The confirmation must come from the company itself. Between the three-year audits the annual review requires a management review confirmed with a name, a role and decisions.	Required question	Assessed: approved Before the first approval and in the three-year round the form requires the management review: the date, participants, status, decisions and the name and role of the person who confirmed it. The status field asks for objectives and actions, environmental performance and core indicators against the objectives, nonconformities, internal audit and legal requirements, changes in context, aspects and risks, resources, and enquiries and complaints. The date must be from the last twelve months, and open placeholders in the status and decisions stop “Ready for audit”. In the three-year round the fields are cleared, and the date must fall after the previous approval. The tick box confirming that management has confirmed the review counts only when the company set it itself, through the fill-in link or as a user in the company, and the auditor sees the source. The platform cannot show who used the fill-in link. The auditor tests the confirmation against the criterion, as a certifier tests signed minutes; the gap is assessed under management. The auditor checks the content against a set criterion. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. Between audits the annual review requires a confirmed management review with decisions. There the status fields cover objectives, nonconformities, audits, legal requirements and procedures, and environmental performance comes in through the greenhouse gas inventory and the statement. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has required a management review as a separate element, but none has found that it can be left out either. The system must be set out in documents showing environmental objectives, procedures and any method for improvement (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; 2024/217 para. 36). A compliance table in which the supplier had answered “Yes”, without specific information on objectives and procedures, could be rejected (KOFA 2024/217 paras. 40–43). The method the EU accepted for another Norwegian scheme was an annual review with minutes signed by management, covering opportunities for improvement, legal breaches, environmental performance from the annual report and new objectives (2017/2286 parts 1 and 12). Miljøcert now requires a documented review with set content before the first approval and in the three-year round, and an annual review between audits. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36 and 40–43; EU 2017/2286 part 1 and 12	EMAS requires a documented review with set content. In the form the status is one field; the auditor checks the content and who confirmed it. The review in the annual review has fewer items than the form. EU interpretation – accepted method: An annual review with the managing director, the environmental manager, the safety representative and the occupational health service, with minutes signed by management. Based on the example given, it covered opportunities for improvement and action plans, breaches of laws and regulations, environmental performance according to the annual report and new objectives.
Nonconformities are handled with root cause analysis and corrective actionAnnex II Part A 10.1–10.2	The environmental management routine (required) has a section on nonconformities: reporting, cause, corrective action and evaluation of whether the action worked. A nonconformity on the platform is closed with its cause and evaluated effect, and the annual review requires an owner and a deadline for nonconformities open for more than 30 days. Nonconformities the auditor finds must be answered by the company, with evidence where required, and the auditor must accept the closure before approval.	Required question	Assessed: approved The environmental management procedure is required: “Yes” requires an uploaded file, and “No, make one for me” a saved draft with a section on nonconformities and corrective action. Open placeholders in the draft stop “Ready for audit”. A nonconformity on the platform cannot be closed without its cause and evaluated effect, and the annual review requires an owner and a deadline for nonconformities open for more than 30 days. Nonconformities the auditor finds must be answered by the company, with a file where they concern legal requirements, and the auditor must accept the answer. The case cannot be approved while a nonconformity is open or the evidence is missing. The auditor checks against a set criterion: nonconformity handling is described with reporting, cause, corrective action and evaluation of whether the action worked, and it is in use, with the internal audit findings followed up. A procedure the company uploads itself is checked by the auditor, not by the form. Norwegian practice: No decision has required a separate nonconformity procedure. But where the requirement was a system “based on” ISO 14001 or EMAS, the underlying requirements had to be met, and the requirement was not shown to be met when it had not been assessed whether audit findings had been corrected by the tender deadline (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23, 26 and 27). The EU accepted nonconformity handling for another Norwegian scheme because a procedure for reporting and handling nonconformities was a criterion checked by the certifier, and because a nonconformity found during certification halted it (2017/2286 parts 4 and 10). Miljøcert now has both: a nonconformity procedure the auditor checks, and nonconformities that stop approval until they are closed. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23, 26 and 27; EU 2017/2286 part 4 and 10	EMAS requires a set procedure for nonconformities across the whole system, with causes and follow-up of the actions. A procedure the company uploads itself is checked only by the auditor. EU interpretation – accepted method: The annual HSE audit under the Norwegian Internal Control Regulations, with sector checklists and templates, risk analysis and checking and correcting nonconformities under a mandatory nonconformity procedure based on the same regulations. The results were reviewed by management, and at certification and recertification the certifier had to confirm that the audit had been carried out as required. For EMAS registration the audit must cover all EMAS requirements.

Environmental statement and core indicators

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Internal and external communication and open dialogue with interested partiesAnnex II Part A 7.4; Part B point 7	The form requires a description of the external communication: who receives and answers environmental enquiries and complaints from the public, authorities, neighbours and customers, the channel and the response time. It also requires how objectives, routines and the statement have been made known internally, and the annual review asks the same every year. The environmental management procedure has its own section on external communication.	Required question	Assessed: approved The form requires two fields. One describes the internal communication of objectives, procedures and the statement. The other describes the external dialogue: who receives and answers environmental enquiries and complaints from the public, authorities, neighbours and customers, the channel, response time and follow-up. Open placeholders in the fields stop “Ready for audit”, and the annual review cannot be submitted without the internal communication of the year. The auditor checks both against a set criterion, including that the statement is public. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The certificate page with the statement cannot be hidden while the certificate exists. The customer can only remove the link to its own website. Norwegian practice: For a system to count as established, it must be implemented, and employees must know the system and how to use it (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30). No decision has required a plan for external communication. In 2017/2286 part 11, communication was only partly in line for another Norwegian scheme, even though its report had to be presented to all employees and published every year. Miljøcert now requires both the internal communication and a description of the external dialogue, and the statement is always public. Basis: KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36; EU 2017/2286 part 11	The description of the external dialogue goes to the auditor and is not published. The statement is public on the certificate page as long as the certificate exists; the customer can only remove the link to its own website. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: Internal communication drew no objection: the report was presented to all employees and published every year. The differences concerned the method (aspects set at sector level), the content (no description of significant aspects under Annex I, not all core indicators in Annex IV, no account of legal requirements and compliance) and the report being checked only every three years. An EMAS organisation may leave out an indicator it can explain is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects.
Public environmental statement with set content, updated every yearArt. 4(1)(d), 6 and 7; Annex IV Parts B and E	Approval publishes a statement from the form, and the annual review requires a new one every year, on the certificate page: the business, the scope with the addresses, how the environmental work is organised, the environmental policy, the significant aspects with the criteria for significance, the objectives with their actions, the core indicators with R per full-time equivalent, the summary of legal requirements with the date of the compliance evaluation, and the auditor who approved. The auditor checks the preview, and the case cannot be approved unless the form gives a complete statement.	In the audit	Assessed: approved Approval publishes a statement built from the form on the certificate page, and the page cannot be hidden while the certificate exists. The statement shows the business, the scope with the addresses, how the environmental work is organised, the criteria for significance, the environmental policy, the significant aspects, the objectives with their actions, the core indicators with R per full-time equivalent, the summary of legal requirements with the date of the compliance evaluation, and the name of the auditor who approved, with the date. The fields are required, and the case cannot be approved when the form does not give a complete statement. The auditor checks the preview against a set criterion and confirms the check with spot checks. Between audits the annual review requires a new statement every year, and it cannot be published when content is missing. That the statements in the years in between are not validated by an external verifier is assessed under verification and cycle. Certificates from before the new flow have no statement until the next round. Norwegian practice: ISO 14001 does not require a public statement, and no decision has required one where the requirement refers only to ISO 14001. The gap concerns the EMAS element: no decision has assessed whether the statement can be missing in a system based on EMAS. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). The minimum requirements in KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 concerned a requirement with no specific content, and their not mentioning a report is no finding. An “annual environmental report” in KOFA 2024/217 para. 24 was the contracting authority's argument, and the board left the assessment in place without ruling on that element (para. 42). The EU found that even an annual, mandatory and public climate and environmental report was only partly in line with EMAS, because not all core indicators in Annex IV and no account of legal requirements were included, and the report was checked only every three years (2017/2286 part 11). Miljøcert now has the core indicators in Annex IV Part C and a summary of legal requirements in the statement, checked by the auditor. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 24 and 42; EU 2017/2286 part 11	EMAS requires the statement to be validated by an environmental verifier every year; small organisations may apply for validation every second year but must still update every year. The statements from the annual review are self-reported and checked by the auditor at the three-year audit. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: Internal communication drew no objection: the report was presented to all employees and published every year. The differences concerned the method (aspects set at sector level), the content (no description of significant aspects under Annex I, not all core indicators in Annex IV, no account of legal requirements and compliance) and the report being checked only every three years. An EMAS organisation may leave out an indicator it can explain is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects.
Energy: total direct energy use and total renewable energy useAnnex IV Part C point 2(c)(i)	Fields for electricity, district heating, fossil heating, petrol, diesel, and electric vehicles and machinery. The indicator must be given as measured (with at least one figure), calculated (with a method) or not relevant (with an explanation). For measured or calculated, also the renewable share of the electricity, district heating and electricity for vehicles bought, and self-generated renewable energy. The statement shows total energy use and total renewable energy use in MWh, both also per full-time equivalent.	Required question	Assessed: approved The energy indicator is now required: measured or calculated requires at least one figure for electricity, district heating or fossil heating, and “not relevant” requires an explanation. One of the three is enough. The figures are not added up to total energy use, fuel sits under transport, renewable energy is not separated out, and at the three-year audit the figures may have been carried over from the previous round. EMAS lets an organisation leave out an indicator only where it can explain why it is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects (Annex IV Part C point 2(a)). In Miljøcert “not relevant” requires an explanation, and the auditor checks it against the materiality analysis. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with spot checks. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed indicators. That the minimum requirements in KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 and 2024/217 para. 36 do not mention them is silence, not a finding that they can be left out, and 2023/978 concerned a requirement that set no specific content. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). No decision has said whether the indicators are among the most important requirements. ISO 14001 does not have the EMAS core indicators, but that helps only where the system is based on ISO 14001, not on EMAS. The Commission counted missing core indicators under Annex IV among the differences that left the reporting of another Norwegian scheme only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286 part 11). The approval therefore does not rest on practice, but on Miljøcert requiring and checking the indicator. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36; EU 2017/2286 part 11; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 a; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 c i	Renewable energy is calculated from one share for electricity, district heating and electricity for vehicles together. Fuel and fossil heating count as non-renewable and are converted to MWh with standard calorific values, so biofuel is not counted as renewable.
Material: annual mass flow of the main materials usedAnnex IV Part C point 2(c)(ii)	The indicator must be given as measured, calculated or not relevant. For measured or calculated, the company gives the total amount in tonnes per year and describes the main materials in free text; otherwise it explains why the figure is not relevant.	Required question	Assessed: approved The materials indicator is now required: measured or calculated requires a text on the main materials, and “not relevant” requires an explanation. The text is not checked for quantities, the annual statement inherits the previous year's text, and at the three-year audit it is carried over from the previous round, so no new annual figure is required. EMAS lets an organisation leave out an indicator only where it can explain why it is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects (Annex IV Part C point 2(a)). In Miljøcert “not relevant” requires an explanation, and the auditor checks it against the materiality analysis. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with spot checks. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed indicators. That the minimum requirements in KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 and 2024/217 para. 36 do not mention them is silence, not a finding that they can be left out, and 2023/978 concerned a requirement that set no specific content. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). No decision has said whether the indicators are among the most important requirements. ISO 14001 does not have the EMAS core indicators, but that helps only where the system is based on ISO 14001, not on EMAS. The Commission counted missing core indicators under Annex IV among the differences that left the reporting of another Norwegian scheme only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286 part 11). The approval therefore does not rest on practice, but on Miljøcert requiring and checking the indicator. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36; EU 2017/2286 part 11; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 a; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 c ii	EMAS requires the annual mass flow of the key materials; reporting each material separately is a recommendation. The form asks for one total in tonnes, and the auditor checks the amount per main material.
Water: total annual water useAnnex IV Part C point 2(c)(iii)	Field for water use in m³. The indicator must be given as measured, calculated or not relevant, with a figure, a method or an explanation, and is shown in the statement.	Required question	Assessed: approved The water indicator is now required: measured or calculated requires water use in m³, calculated requires a method, and “not relevant” requires an explanation. In the annual review the figure is taken from the year's greenhouse gas inventory and shown in the statement. At the three-year audit, however, the figure from the previous round is carried over and accepted without being updated, so the requirement for an annual figure is not enforced that year. The field is only checked for not being empty. EMAS lets an organisation leave out an indicator only where it can explain why it is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects (Annex IV Part C point 2(a)). In Miljøcert “not relevant” requires an explanation, and the auditor checks it against the materiality analysis. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with spot checks. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed indicators. That the minimum requirements in KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 and 2024/217 para. 36 do not mention them is silence, not a finding that they can be left out, and 2023/978 concerned a requirement that set no specific content. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). No decision has said whether the indicators are among the most important requirements. ISO 14001 does not have the EMAS core indicators, but that helps only where the system is based on ISO 14001, not on EMAS. The Commission counted missing core indicators under Annex IV among the differences that left the reporting of another Norwegian scheme only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286 part 11). The approval therefore does not rest on practice, but on Miljøcert requiring and checking the indicator. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36; EU 2017/2286 part 11; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 a; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 c iii	EMAS requires a new figure every year. At the three-year audit the figure from the previous round is carried over as a starting point; the auditor checks that it applies to the last full year, and the statement shows R per full-time equivalent.
Waste: total amount by type, and hazardous wasteAnnex IV Part C point 2(c)(iv)	Kilograms per fraction, hazardous waste, the total and the sorting rate from the waste operator. The indicator must be given as measured, calculated or not relevant; for measured or calculated, hazardous waste must be given (0 is allowed), and the amount must be broken down by type: a total larger than the hazardous waste requires at least one fraction or an own entry, also for unsorted waste. The same applies to the statement in the annual review. The statement shows the amount by type and hazardous waste on a separate line.	Required question	Assessed: approved The waste indicator is now required, but measured or calculated is accepted with any single waste figure, for example residual waste only. Hazardous waste is not required as a separate figure, and the statement shows only the total, not the amount by type. At the three-year audit the figures may have been carried over from the previous round. EMAS lets an organisation leave out an indicator only where it can explain why it is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects (Annex IV Part C point 2(a)). In Miljøcert “not relevant” requires an explanation, and the auditor checks it against the materiality analysis. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with spot checks. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed indicators. That the minimum requirements in KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 and 2024/217 para. 36 do not mention them is silence, not a finding that they can be left out, and 2023/978 concerned a requirement that set no specific content. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). No decision has said whether the indicators are among the most important requirements. ISO 14001 does not have the EMAS core indicators, but that helps only where the system is based on ISO 14001, not on EMAS. The Commission counted missing core indicators under Annex IV among the differences that left the reporting of another Norwegian scheme only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286 part 11). The approval therefore does not rest on practice, but on Miljøcert requiring and checking the indicator. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36; EU 2017/2286 part 11; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 a; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 c iv	Each fraction is optional: one fraction besides hazardous waste is enough, and a fraction that is not filled in is not shown. The auditor checks the breakdown against the waste operator’s statement.
Land use: total area, sealed area and nature-oriented areasAnnex IV Part C point 2(c)(v)	The land use indicator must be given as measured, calculated or not relevant. For measured or calculated, the company gives four figures in m²: total land use, sealed area, and nature-oriented area on and off site (0 is allowed). An optional question on biodiversity gives suggested measures.	Required question	Assessed: approved The land use indicator is now required, but the figure behind it is the floor area of the premises. Total land use, sealed area and nature-oriented areas on and off site are not collected. The biodiversity question is still optional and gives no figures. EMAS lets an organisation leave out an indicator only where it can explain why it is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects (Annex IV Part C point 2(a)). In Miljøcert “not relevant” requires an explanation, and the auditor checks it against the materiality analysis. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with spot checks. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed indicators. That the minimum requirements in KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 and 2024/217 para. 36 do not mention them is silence, not a finding that they can be left out, and 2023/978 concerned a requirement that set no specific content. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). No decision has said whether the indicators are among the most important requirements. ISO 14001 does not have the EMAS core indicators, but that helps only where the system is based on ISO 14001, not on EMAS. The Commission counted missing core indicators under Annex IV among the differences that left the reporting of another Norwegian scheme only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286 part 11). The approval therefore does not rest on practice, but on Miljøcert requiring and checking the indicator. The Commission expressly noted that indicators for biodiversity were missing. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36; EU 2017/2286 part 11; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 a; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 c v	Tenants give their share of the area. A statement from before the four figures were introduced shows the floor area of the premises instead.
Emissions: greenhouse gases, and SO₂, NOx and particulate matterAnnex IV Part C point 2(c)(vi)	Greenhouse gas emissions in scope 1, 2 and 3 are calculated from the figures in the form and shown on the certificate page, also per NOK 1,000 of revenue, and as a separate row in the statement in tonnes CO₂e. Refrigerant refilled is given with its type, converted with its GWP (IPCC AR5) and included in scope 1 and in the total; if energy or transport is measured or calculated, the statement cannot be published without the total. Emissions to air (SO₂, NOx and particulate matter) are given as measured, calculated or not relevant, with R per full-time equivalent for each substance.	Required question	Assessed: approved Scope 1–3 greenhouse gas emissions are calculated from the energy and transport figures, which must now have figures or an explanation, and the annual review requires an inventory with figures. Both indicators can still be set to “not relevant”. Emissions are not a separate row in the statement, and SO₂, NOx and particulate matter are not collected and cannot be explained away either. EMAS lets an organisation leave out an indicator only where it can explain why it is not relevant to its significant direct environmental aspects (Annex IV Part C point 2(a)). In Miljøcert “not relevant” requires an explanation, and the auditor checks it against the materiality analysis. The case cannot be approved until the nonconformities are closed and the auditor has confirmed the check with spot checks. Norwegian practice: No KOFA decision has assessed indicators. That the minimum requirements in KOFA 2023/978 para. 30 and 2024/217 para. 36 do not mention them is silence, not a finding that they can be left out, and 2023/978 concerned a requirement that set no specific content. A system “based on” a standard must meet its underlying requirements (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), at least the most important ones (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41). No decision has said whether the indicators are among the most important requirements. ISO 14001 does not have the EMAS core indicators, but that helps only where the system is based on ISO 14001, not on EMAS. The Commission counted missing core indicators under Annex IV among the differences that left the reporting of another Norwegian scheme only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286 part 11). The approval therefore does not rest on practice, but on Miljøcert requiring and checking the indicator. The Commission gave missing indicators for emissions to air “such as NOx or PM” as an example. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; KOFA 2024/217 para. 36; EU 2017/2286 part 11; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 a; EMAS Annex IV part C point 2 c vi	Energy, transport and emissions to air can be set to “not relevant” with an explanation. Other process gases (PFCs, SF₆, NF₃) have no field of their own; the auditor clarifies them.

Verification and registration

EMAS requires	In Miljøcert	Status	Assessment	EMAS also requires
Verification and validation by an accredited or licensed environmental verifierArt. 4(5), 18, 19 and 25	An auditor appointed by Miljøcert checks each item against a set criterion and approves the report or rejects it with reasons. Approval requires the nonconformities to be closed, those on legal requirements with a file, and the auditor to have confirmed the check with spot checks. Only a case marked ready can be approved, and the auditor cannot take a case they have been involved in as a consultant.	EMAS only	Assessed: approved not required in Norwegian practice The auditor is appointed by Miljøcert and is not accredited or licensed under EMAS, so Miljøcert gives no verification or validation in the EMAS sense. Approval requires the auditor to have checked each item against a set criterion, the nonconformities to be closed, those on legal requirements with a file, and the auditor to have confirmed the check with a description of the spot checks. The spot checks are written to the case history. An auditor cannot take a case they have been involved in as a consultant, and only a case marked ready for audit can be approved. A case can only be marked ready once the form, the documents and the indicators are in place, and “Completed” can only be set after the auditor's approval. The item is approved because Norwegian practice does not require external verification for “based on”, not because the audit is a verification: the Miljøcert audit is not an EMAS verification. It does not hold where the tender requires EMAS registration or a certificate from an accredited body, or where Miljøcert itself is put forward as an “equivalent” standard. The “For buyers” box on the certificate page refers to § 16-7 (3). That is a separate track, and this assessment is not used to support it. Norwegian practice: For “based on … or equivalent”, formal certification is not required (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27; 2018/258 paras. 35–36). For a similarly worded requirement on quality management under ISO 9001, the requirement gave no basis for demanding “a form of external quality control”, but “relatively strict requirements for the documentation” had to be set (KOFA 2018/219 paras. 44–45). What practice requires instead, the organisation's own documents and regular audits, is assessed under objectives, documents, internal audit and cycle. “Equivalent” has been read as standards “at the same level of certification as ISO and EMAS” (KOFA 2020/657 para. 41), so the approval concerns a system based on ISO 14001 or EMAS, not Miljøcert put forward as a standard of its own. The EU found that even certification by a third party that was not accredited was only partly in line with EMAS (2017/2286, the part on accreditation). Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2018/258 para. 35–36; KOFA 2018/219 para. 44–45; KOFA 2020/657 para. 41; EU 2017/2286; Public Procurement Regulations § 16-7 (2)	Under EMAS, only an accredited or licensed environmental verifier may verify and validate. The Miljøcert audit is not accredited. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: The Commission found a coherent system of certification by a third party, with site visits, interviews and spot checks, and the scheme owner checked each certification before a certificate was issued. But the certifiers were generally not accredited, were not required to be competent to detect issues outside the criteria, and could partly rely on the consultant's assurance. At recertification every three years the annual reports for each year were checked, but there was no check in between. The Commission compared this with checks every second year for small organisations under EMAS.
Full verification at least every three years, and a validated update every yearArt. 6, 7 and 19(2)	The certificate is valid for three years. At the three-year audit the auditor gets a new report and sees what has changed. In the years in between Miljøcert requires an annual review on the platform, and without it the certificate is invalid one month after the deadline.	In the audit	Assessed: approved not required in Norwegian practice The certificate is valid for three years. In the years between the three-year audits an annual review on the platform is now required: an internal audit carried out, a management review confirmed with decisions, a greenhouse gas inventory for the previous year, a statement published on the certificate page, and an owner and a deadline for nonconformities that have been open for more than 30 days. The deadline falls every twelve months counted from approval, and if the submission does not arrive, the certificate is invalid from one month after the deadline. Deadlines before 12 January 2027 are waived, so the first annual reviews are required from then. The update is not validated by an external verifier. The item is approved because Norwegian practice does not require external validation for “based on”, and because what practice requires instead, that the system is in use and regularly audited, is now enforced. Weaknesses in the content are assessed under internal audit, management review and monitoring. Internal audits and management reviews with open placeholders do not count in the annual review, and the date of the compliance evaluation must fall within the period. At the three-year audit the auditor sees the annual reviews and the statements for each year. That is a check every three years, not a validation. A certificate shown because its status was set by hand has no annual deadline. Norwegian practice: A system “based on” ISO 14001/EMAS “or equivalent” does not need formal certification (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27), and so does not need annual external validation either. For a similarly worded requirement under ISO 9001, the requirement gave no basis for demanding “a form of external quality control” (KOFA 2018/219 paras. 44–45). What practice requires instead is that the system is in use at the time of the tender (KOFA 2023/978 para. 30) and regularly audited: where the tender required “regular audits” documented for recent years, the requirement was not met because no audit of the environmental system had been carried out (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 21–22 and 26). That is now enforced by the annual review. In the EU assessment, the annual reports for every year were checked at recertification every three years, and the interval was one of the reasons several parts were only partly in line (2017/2286 parts 4 and 11 and the part on accreditation). That difference concerns external checks, which Norwegian practice does not require for “based on”. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 21–23 and 26–27; KOFA 2018/219 para. 44–45; KOFA 2023/978 para. 30; EU 2017/2286 part 4 and 11	EMAS requires the yearly update (every second year for small organisations) to be validated by an environmental verifier. The annual review in Miljøcert is not validated by an environmental verifier. EU interpretation – not fully accepted: The Commission found a coherent system of certification by a third party, with site visits, interviews and spot checks, and the scheme owner checked each certification before a certificate was issued. But the certifiers were generally not accredited, were not required to be competent to detect issues outside the criteria, and could partly rely on the consultant's assurance. At recertification every three years the annual reports for each year were checked, but there was no check in between. The Commission compared this with checks every second year for small organisations under EMAS.
Registration with the Brønnøysund Register Centre and the right to use the EMAS logoArt. 10 and 13; Norwegian Pollution Regulations §§ 38-2 and 38-3	Miljøcert issues its own certificate and badge with a public page.	EMAS only	Assessed: approved not required in Norwegian practice EMAS registration and the right to the logo are formal EMAS status, not a requirement for the content of the system. Miljøcert gives no EMAS registration, so a tender that expressly requires EMAS registration is not met. Norwegian practice: For “based on … or equivalent”, formal certification is not required (KOFA 2022/1696 paras. 23 and 27; 2018/258 paras. 35–36). For EMAS, registration is the formal status, so it is the same element KOFA has assessed. Basis: KOFA 2022/1696 para. 23 and 27; KOFA 2018/258 para. 35–36; EMAS art. 13; Public Procurement Regulations § 16-7 (2)	Registration and the right to use the logo are granted only by the Brønnøysund Register Centre, Norway's EMAS competent body, after EMAS verification and validation.

Questions in Miljøcert

The questions in the Miljøcert form that concern environmental management, with the EMAS requirements they relate to. Contact details are left out.

Question	Required	What it provides	EMAS requirements
Company detailsRelevant information about the business	Yes	The description the materiality analysis and the draft procedures build on.	Documented environmental review: context, interested parties, direct and indirect aspects, and which are significant
Company detailsRevenue in the last full financial year	Yes	Gives emissions per NOK 1,000 of revenue on the certificate page.
Legal requirements and approvalsConfirm that the company meets applicable legal requirements	Yes	Self-declaration by tick box.	Compliance with environmental law, including permits, documented and checked
Legal requirements and approvalsConfirm that the company has no ongoing inspection cases	Yes	Self-declaration by tick box.	Compliance with environmental law, including permits, documented and checked
Legal requirements and approvalsConfirm that the company is registered in the mandatory take-back schemes	Yes	Self-declaration by tick box.	Compliance with environmental law, including permits, documented and checked
Environmental management and documentationHas the company carried out a due diligence assessment?	Optional	Risk mapping with priorities and measures, uploaded or drafted.
Environmental management and documentationDoes the company have an environmental management procedure?	Yes	Procedure covering responsibility, follow-up, documentation, improvement and communication.	Roles and responsibilities assigned, and one or more representatives appointed by top management Continual improvement of environmental performance, not only of the system Nonconformities are handled with root cause analysis and corrective action Internal and external communication and open dialogue with interested parties
Environmental management and documentationHas the company carried out a materiality analysis?	Yes	Register of own direct and indirect environmental aspects with criteria for significance, risks and opportunities, past incidents and current practice.	Documented environmental review: context, interested parties, direct and indirect aspects, and which are significant Risks and opportunities, past incidents and existing practices assessed Internal and external communication and open dialogue with interested parties
Environmental management and documentationDoes the company have an environmental policy?	Yes	The policy text, dated by the managing director, published in the environmental statement.	Environmental policy committing to protect the environment, meet legal requirements and keep improving
Environmental management and documentationBiodiversity and ecosystems	Optional	Suggested measures for outdoor areas, encroachment on nature, chemicals, noise and light.
Objectives and actionsObjectives 1–5 with actions and deadlines	Yes	Up to five objectives, of which objective 1 is required. Suggestions build on the company's own figures.	Environmental objectives and an action plan with responsibilities, resources and deadlines
Procedures for environmental workDoes the company have a purchasing procedure consistent with the environmental policy?	Yes	Purchasing procedure, including hired labour, with responsibilities and steps.	Environmental requirements in procurement, communicated to suppliers and contractors
Procedures for environmental workDoes the company have a procedure for evaluating hired labour, subcontractors and the value chain?	Yes	Supplier procedure with environmental aspects, nonconformity handling and documentation.	Environmental requirements in procurement, communicated to suppliers and contractors
Procedures for environmental workDoes the company have a procedure for circular economy, reuse and waste?	Yes	Procedure with purpose, responsibilities and steps.	Operational control of the significant environmental aspects
Procedures for environmental workDoes the company have an energy management procedure?	Yes	Procedure with purpose, responsibilities and steps.	Operational control of the significant environmental aspects
Legal requirements, training and environmental riskDoes the company have an overview of the environmental legal requirements that apply to it?	Yes	Overview of legal requirements, permits and registrations, uploaded or drafted.	Register of applicable environmental legal requirements and procedures that ensure compliance
Legal requirements, training and environmental riskDoes the company have a procedure for evaluating whether legal requirements are met?	Yes	Procedure for who evaluates, how often and how nonconformities are followed up. It is not the evaluation itself.	Compliance with environmental law, including permits, documented and checked
Legal requirements, training and environmental riskShort account of the main environmental legal requirements and how they are complied with	Yes	Free text that also appears in the environmental statement.	Register of applicable environmental legal requirements and procedures that ensure compliance Compliance with environmental law, including permits, documented and checked
Legal requirements, training and environmental riskDoes the company have a plan for training employees in environmental work?	Yes	Training plan, uploaded or drafted. Training actually given is recorded in a separate field.	Competence, awareness and active involvement of employees
Legal requirements, training and environmental riskHas the company assessed the risk of environmental incidents?	Yes	Possible incidents such as spills, fire and leaks, with prevention, measures and alerting, uploaded or drafted.	Emergency preparedness for environmental incidents, tested where practicable
Climate accounting and emissionsCore indicators: measured, calculated or not relevant	Yes	For energy, water, waste, materials, transport, land use and emissions to air: a figure, a method or an explanation.	Monitoring and measurement of environmental performance Energy: total direct energy use and total renewable energy use Material: annual mass flow of the main materials used Water: total annual water use Waste: total amount by type, and hazardous waste Land use: total area, sealed area and nature-oriented areas Emissions: greenhouse gases, and SO₂, NOx and particulate matter
Climate accounting and emissionsThe main materials and goods the organisation uses	Yes	Free text with quantities, required when materials are measured or calculated.	Material: annual mass flow of the main materials used
Climate accounting and emissionsElectricity, district heating, fossil heating, fuel and water	Optional	Annual quantities used to calculate a scope 1–3 greenhouse gas inventory.	Monitoring and measurement of environmental performance Energy: total direct energy use and total renewable energy use Water: total annual water use Emissions: greenhouse gases, and SO₂, NOx and particulate matter
Business travel and transportMileage allowance and flights	Optional	Gives travel emissions in scope 3.	Monitoring and measurement of environmental performance Emissions: greenhouse gases, and SO₂, NOx and particulate matter
Waste managementWaste by fraction, hazardous waste and sorting rate	Optional	Annual amounts in kilograms and the sorting rate from the waste operator.	Monitoring and measurement of environmental performance Waste: total amount by type, and hazardous waste
Continual improvementDo you have a plan for continual improvement?	Optional	Plan following Plan–Do–Check–Act.	Continual improvement of environmental performance, not only of the system
Preparedness and continuityProcedure for preparedness and continuity planning	Optional	Plan for operating in a crisis, with vulnerability analysis and testing.	Emergency preparedness for environmental incidents, tested where practicable
Self-declarationManagement stands behind the certification and follows it up in an annual review	Yes	Management self-declaration, given by the company itself. The review itself is required before the first approval.	Top management takes responsibility for and follows up the management system Management review of the management system at planned intervals
Self-declarationName of the managing director	Yes	Entered below the self-declarations.	Top management takes responsibility for and follows up the management system

“No, make one for me” means the platform drafts a document the company can edit. The case cannot be marked ready for audit until the draft is saved, and a “Yes” requires the document to be uploaded. The content is not checked against fixed criteria. The auditor sees the answers and the documents that were uploaded or drafted.

For buyers

How the overview can be used depends on how the requirement in the tender is worded. There are three cases.

Requirement without a certificate

Where the contracting authority asks for a description of the environmental management measures, the overview can be attached to the description and used directly:

“a description of environmental management measures”Norwegian Public Procurement Regulations § 16-6 (1)(g)

The same applies to a requirement for a system “based on” ISO 14001 or EMAS “or equivalent”. The system must then meet the underlying requirements, without formal certification being needed (KOFA 2022/1696 paragraph 23), and at least the most important requirements of the standard (KOFA 2020/657 paragraph 41). In KOFA 2026/0342 (paragraphs 44–48), a description and a table of contents without a certificate documented a “good and well-functioning” system, and the contracting authority then had to show that the requirement was nevertheless not met. That case concerned a quality system. A table that only answers “Yes” to each requirement is not enough, however (KOFA 2024/217 paragraphs 40–42). There the requirement was an environmental management system meeting ISO 14001, with no requirement for certification.

The guidance on environmental management in procurement from DFØ, the Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management, asks contracting authorities to consider setting requirements for specific environmental management measures and allowing several ways to document them, rather than requiring a particular certificate, to ensure broad competition.

Requirement for a certificate from an independent body (§ 16-7 (2))

Where a contracting authority requires a certificate from an independent body, it must refer to EMAS, to schemes recognised under Article 45 of the EMAS Regulation, or to other environmental management standards based on relevant European or international standards from accredited bodies. According to the DFØ guidance, a contracting authority that refers to one of these schemes must also accept the others.

Miljøcert is none of these, and a Miljøcert certificate is not an equivalent certificate. A tender that expressly requires EMAS registration or the EMAS logo is not met with Miljøcert.

When the certificate could not be obtained by the deadline (§ 16-7 (3))

The contracting authority shall accept other documentation of equivalent environmental management measures where the supplier had no possibility of obtaining the certificate by the deadline for reasons not attributable to the supplier. The tender documents cannot rule this out (KOFA 2025/0555 paragraph 38).

The supplier bears the burden of proof that the certificate could not be obtained in time (KOFA 2023/1017 paragraphs 50–54). In KOFA 2025/1228 (paragraphs 36–40), a system without an accredited certificate was accepted because the similarity had been shown requirement by requirement with examples, and the requirements were met when the tender was submitted. An ISO certification took four to six months there, against about one month from notice to tender deadline. That case concerned quality assurance under the same provision.

The table above shows each EMAS requirement next to what Miljøcert asks about, with what EMAS requires in addition and our assessment. The supplier must attach the examples from its own system itself.

The comparison is made against EMAS, and it can be read against all three schemes the DFØ guidance refers to. EMAS Annex II Part A reproduces the requirements of ISO 14001:2015 clauses 4–10, so an item assessed against Part A also shows the position against ISO 14001. The other Norwegian scheme was assessed by the European Commission against EMAS item by item (Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2286). That assessment is shown under each item, and where that scheme was only partly in line, it fell short of the EMAS requirement.

The contracting authority decides in each procurement whether the documentation is sufficient.

What Miljøcert is not

Miljøcert is not EMAS. A Miljøcert certification gives no EMAS registration and no right to use the EMAS logo.
Miljøcert is not recognised under Article 45 of the EMAS Regulation, and the certification is not accredited. A Miljøcert certificate is therefore not a certificate under § 16-7 (2) of the Public Procurement Regulations.
The auditor is appointed by Miljøcert and is not an accredited environmental verifier.
The European Commission's interpretation shown for each requirement concerns another scheme. It says what the Commission accepted there, not how Miljøcert would be assessed.
The overview and the assessment per item are our own. No authority, KOFA decision or court ruling has assessed Miljøcert.

Sources

EMAS Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009, consolidated text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009R1221-20230712
Norwegian Pollution Regulations chapter 38 (EMAS in Norway): https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2004-06-01-931/KAPITTEL_11
Norwegian Public Procurement Regulations §§ 16-6 and 16-7: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2016-08-12-974
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2286, with annex, in Norwegian in EEA Supplement No 45/2020 p. 1019 et seq.: https://lovdata.no/eu/32017d2286
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2286 on EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32017D2286
Directive 2014/24/EU Article 62: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024
Norwegian Public Procurement Regulations § 16-7 (certificates for quality assurance and environmental management standards): https://lovdata.no/forskrift/2016-08-12-974/§16-7
DFØ: Use of eco-labels, environmental product declarations and environmental management systems in procurement (updated 23 September 2026, in Norwegian): https://www.anskaffelser.no/verktoy/veileder/bruk-av-miljomerker-miljovaredeklarasjoner-og-miljoledelsessystem-i-anskaffelser
KOFA case 2020/657: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2020-657
KOFA case 2023/978: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2023-978
KOFA case 2024/217: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2024-217
KOFA case 2022/1696: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2022-1696
KOFA case 2022/909: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2022-909
KOFA case 2020/609: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2020-609
KOFA case 2023/703: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2023-703
KOFA case 2023/377: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2023-377
KOFA case 2018/207: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2018-207
KOFA case 2018/219: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2018-219
KOFA case 2018/258: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2018-258
KOFA case 2025/1228: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2025-1228
KOFA case 2025/0555: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2025-0555
KOFA case 2023/1017: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2023-1017
KOFA case 2026/0342: https://www.klagenemndssekretariatet.no/sak/2026-0342