When comparing the cost of compliance with labelling and MEPS, the results are broadly similar with similar proportions of respondents feeling positively or negatively about them. Efficiency of GEMS Process – Registering 36 % of manufacturing respondents and 43% of regulator/government respondents have found the registering part of the GEMS process very effective or quite effective compared to the 25% of manufacturers who have found it quite ineffective or very infective. No regulator or government respondents have found the process ineffective but there are a large proportion who either don’t know or who haven’t stated either way (57%). Efficiency of GEMS Process- Testing 50% of manufacturing respondents and 43% of regulator/government respondents have found the testing process either very effective or quite effective. Only 11% of manufacturers responded negatively stating that the testing was quite ineffective and no regulator/government, but as in the previous question there is a large proportion who don’t know or who think it is neither effective nor ineffective (57%). How efficient is the GEMS Process – Labelling 44% of manufacturing respondents and 86% of regulator/government respondents have found the labelling process either very effective or quite effective. Only 6% of manufacturers responded negatively stating that the labelling was quite ineffective and no regulator/government respondents. How efficient is the GEMS Process – Communicating 33% of manufacturing respondents and 86% of regulator/government respondents have found the communication process either very effective or quite effective. 19% of manufacturers responded negatively stating that the communication was quite ineffective and no regulator/government respondents. Effectiveness of energy rating labels on helping consumers make energy efficient purchase decisions
When comparing the cost of compliance with labelling and MEPS, the results are broadly similar with similar proportions of respondents feeling positively or negatively about them. Efficiency of GEMS Process – Registering 36 % of manufacturing respondents and 43% of regulator/government respondents have found the registering part of the GEMS process very effective or quite effective compared to the 25% of manufacturers who have found it quite ineffective or very infective. No regulator or government respondents have found the process ineffective but there are a large proportion who either don’t know or who haven’t stated either way (57%). Efficiency of GEMS Process- Testing 50% of manufacturing respondents and 43% of regulator/government respondents have found the testing process either very effective or quite effective. Only 11% of manufacturers responded negatively stating that the testing was quite ineffective and no regulator/government, but as in the previous question there is a large proportion who don’t know or who think it is neither effective nor ineffective (57%). How efficient is the GEMS Process – Labelling 44% of manufacturing respondents and 86% of regulator/government respondents have found the labelling process either very effective or quite effective. Only 6% of manufacturers responded negatively stating that the labelling was quite ineffective and no regulator/government respondents. How efficient is the GEMS Process – Communicating 33% of manufacturing respondents and 86% of regulator/government respondents have found the communication process either very effective or quite effective. 19% of manufacturers responded negatively stating that the communication was quite ineffective and no regulator/government respondents. Effectiveness of energy rating labels on helping consumers make energy efficient purchase decisions
GEMS_Review_2015_Appendices_0.docx