COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services - Hoofdinhoud

Council of the European Union Brussels, 4 December 2015 (OR. en)

14799/15 ADD 6

SOC 700 MI 770 ANTIDISCRIM 15

COVER NOTE

From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director date of receipt: 3 December 2015

To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

No. Cion doc.: SWD(2015) 264 final PART 3/3

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2015) 264 final PART 3/3.

Encl.: SWD(2015) 264 final PART 3/3

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.12.2015 SWD(2015) 264 final

PART 3/3

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive

of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the

accessibility requirements for products and services

{COM(2015) 615 final i} {SWD(2015) 265 final} {SWD(2015) 266 final}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annex 7: Details on the baseline scenario and impact analysis for selected goods and services and public

procurement (including methodology) .............................................................................. 3

A - Methodological Summary Impact Assessment ....................................................................... 3

B - Impact analysis for each selected good and service and public procurement ............................... 16

Annex 8: Public Procurement including Public and total demand by product in 2005 (All Products) ... 165

Annex 9: Impact on Fundamental Rights ..................................................................................... 170

Annex 10: List of accessibility relevant EU acts ............................................................................. 173

Annex 11: Small and Medium Enterprises, including micro-enterprises: Consultations and analysis of

impacts (SMEs Test) ................................................................................................... 178

A NNEX 7: D ETAILS ON THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED

GOODS AND SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ( INCLUDING METHODOLOGY )

A - M ETHODOLOGICAL S UMMARY I MPACT A SSESSMENT

This section presents the methodological approach taken for the calculation of the costs of accessibility requirements and the quantitative assessment of the policy options for the priority goods and services (also referred to as “cases”), including public procurement. The aim is to describe the broad approach taken and the types of assumptions that have been made for the purpose of carrying out the estimates. Distinction is made between cases for which a “topdown” or a “bottom-up” approach has been applied for calculating the costs of accessibility. Additionally, the cases of architect services and telecommunication services are described separately as their features required a slightly different methodological approach.

1.1 General approach

• 1. 

  A set of “basic assumptions” has been identified for each case that is necessary to carry out the problem assessment and assessment of impacts of the policy options. They vary slightly between the cases as a result of the availability of data and specifics of the market. Examples of generally applicable basic assumptions include:

  Type of figure Source

Based on available data, e.g. Prodcom figures

Market volume or extrapolated from individual company

data

Number of companies Based on available data or extrapolated based on the share of GDP

Proportion of turnover stemming from crossborder

trade Estimates based on assumptions

Share of GDP of the countries where accessibility requirements have been

evidenced or are expected to be adopted by Eurostat

2020 Level of additional costs resulting from

contradicting accessibility requirements Estimates based on assumptions

Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) Based on available data from various sources

Further details regarding data sources and assumptions are given in the Deloitte study.

• 2. 

  An assessment of the current problem in monetary terms. This comprises the total cost of

accessibility based on one set of requirements across the EU 1 , adjusted to take account of the

costs to ensure accessibility of goods/services sold across borders, and the costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders (explained below).

• 3. 

  An assessment of the baseline scenario, i.e. the expected situation in 2020, which takes the same approach as in step 2 and takes account of projected growth of the market for each good and service (e.g. by applying the CAGR to the total market volume 2011) and changes in the number of Member States that are anticipated to legislate for accessibility.

• 4. 

  Finally, the expected impacts (costs and benefits) of the three following policy options are assessed compared to the Baseline Scenario: Policy Option 2: Recommendation (adopted either by all Member States that are expected to have adopted legislation by 2020 or only a share of them); Policy Option 3: a Directive applicable to all the Member States that are expected to have requirements in place by 2020; and Policy Option 4: a Directive applicable to all Member States.

1

 This total cost figure relates to the overall cost of accessibility that would be incurred by the industry if one

general set of requirements was in place. It is related to the accessibility of the physical product only as

the cost of understanding legislative requirements can be considered as negligible since the assumption

for this figure is that only one set of requirements would be in place. This figure is calculated in order to

be able to estimate the product-related cost to ensure accessibility of good / service sold across borders

under differing national accessibility requirements and the costs of understanding these.

1.2 Assessed Goods and Services

The following table provides an overview of the goods and services as well as their "components" that are considered in the framework of the present study.

Good / Service Component 1 Component 2 Component 3

Computers and Operating

systems - - -

Digital TV services and

equipment DTT equipment

Broadcasting

services -

Telephony services and Terminal

related terminal equipment Services manufacturing -

eBooks - - -

Private sector websites - - -

Architect Services - - -

Self-service terminals ATMs Ticketing machines Check-in machines

E-commerce - - -

Banking services Websites Built environment ATMs

Air transport services Websites Built environment Check-in machines

Rail transport services Websites Ticketing machines

Bus transport services Websites Built environment Ticketing machines

Maritime transport services Websites Built environment Ticketing machines

Hospitality services Websites Built environment -

Public Procurement - - -

1.3 Approach to the assessments: Top-down vs. Bottom-up

Since for each case, there are differences in the availability, detail and applicability of data, two different approaches have had to be made in order to achieve the most valid results. These two approaches can best be described as “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches.

The main difference is that in the top-down approach, estimates of the costs of accessibility and the quantitative assessment of the policy options are derived from high-level market turnover figures that are broken down by (assumed) shares of accessibility costs. This approach is applied to the cases of Computers and operating systems, Terminal manufacturing, DTT equipment, Broadcasting services, Self-service terminals as well as Public procurement.

 In contrast, the starting point of the bottom-up approach is data on the cost of accessibility per good or service. The bottom-up approach varies slightly from case to case depending on the detail of the data available for that case. It is applied in the cases of Websites, Architect services, eBooks, and Telecom services.

1.3.1 Top-down cases

1.3.1.1 General approach to estimates

A three step-logic lies behind the top-down approach. Each step results in a different estimate that is used both in the problem assessment and in the baseline scenario calculations.

Step 1: Estimate the total cost of accessibility based on one set of requirements in the EU;

Step 2: Estimate the costs to ensure accessibility of goods/services sold across borders; and

Step 3: Estimate the costs for understanding different accessibility requirements across

borders.

Step 1: Estimate the total cost of accessibility assuming that one set of requirements is applied to the EU

The current "on-off" development costs (= capital expenditure (CAPEX 2 )) are calculated by

multiplying

• the [Total market volume in the current situation] with

• the [Assumed share of development costs, i.e. the costs to develop a product generally]

with

• the [Assumed share of accessibility costs, i.e. the additional development costs of

making a product accessible].

Then, the current ongoing costs (operational expenses (OPEX 3 )) are calculated by

multiplying

2

  CAPEX: Production-related capital expenditures that are incurred as one-off development costs for specific

goods or services by all EU businesses in a specific industry sector. These costs can, in some cases, be

incurred on an annual basis since technological advancement necessitates new product developments in

industries such as, for example, the telecommunication terminal manufacturing industry.

• the [CAPEX] times

• the [Assumed share of ongoing costs].

Next, CAPEX and OPEX are summed in order to arrive at the current total cost of accessibility (based on one set of requirements in the EU).

Formula 1

[Total cost (CAPEX + OPEX) of accessibility based on one set of requirements (EU)] = CAPEX: ([Total market volume in 2011] * ([Assumed share of development costs] * [Assumed share of accessibility costs]) + OPEX: ([Total market volume in 2011] * [Assumed share of development costs] * [Assumed share of accessibility costs] * [Assumed share of ongoing costs])

Step 2: Estimate the costs to ensure accessibility of goods/services sold across borders

Now, in order to calculate cost to ensure the accessibility of a good or service when sold across borders the [total costs of accessibility] is multiplied by

• the [(assumed) proportion of turnover stemming from cross-border trade] (different

requirements are only relevant for goods/services that are traded across borders)

• the [number of countries that are expected to have legislation in place by 2020] (in

order to take account of the fact that EU Member States’ legislation may impose

different requirements on goods and services and, hence, costs are incurred several

times by manufacturers and providers)

• the [respective share of EU GDP these countries account for] ( to value the cost figures

for the size of the market at risk of fragmentation)

• a [correction factor]

3

  OPEX: Marginal production-related operational expenditures that are incurred as on-going costs for specific

goods or services by all EU businesses in a specific industry sector. These on-going costs relate, for

example, to providing each produced good or service with accessibility features, as well as maintenance

costs of the product, but also to labour costs. Hence, they are incurred on an annual basis by businesses.

The methodology used to derive quantitative estimates of the costs of fragmentation assumes that these costs increase with the number of Member States that adopt their own national requirements for accessibility. In practice, these national requirements will often overlap to a greater or lesser extent, so that companies will not in every case be faced with a set of completely incompatible national requirements. To take account of this overlap, a correction factor is applied to the number of Member States that are assumed to have introduced national accessibility requirements. The correction factor is specific to each good or service and is based on expert judgement, taking into account the range of possible choices Member States will have in establishing national accessibility requirements. The higher the correction factor, the greater the anticipated differences in national requirements, and the greater the level of internal market fragmentation. Thus, if the correction factor is set at its maximum value of 100%, this implies a judgment that Member States are expected to adopt totally different accessibility requirements for that good or service. A correction factor of 10%, on the other hand, would imply that national accessibility requirements are expected to overlap to a considerable extent.

The costs of accessibility for states which do already have some requirements in place, will therefore only constitute a share of the costs, linked to the correction factor, which have to be incurred by those states which will not have put respective legislation in place at all or only to a lesser extent. This is the case since it is highly unlikely that the accessibility requirements already put in place in a state would be totally different from the ones required by this EU initiative.

In the same vein, especially for states which already have some legislation in place containing accessibility requirements, the costs of making their goods and services accessible according to one common set of rules, is considerably less also in comparison to the initial on-off and on-going costs of making the good accessible, since the correction factor numerically depicts the fact that the added accessibility costs will almost always constitute only a fraction of these initial costs.

In some cases ranges of estimates have been applied, where there is a certain degree of uncertainty concerning the underlying assumptions, leading to lower and upper ranges.

As the correction factor is a key variable both in determining the costs of fragmentation in the baseline scenario, and of the relative benefits of reducing or eliminating fragmentation in the different policy options, a sensitivity analysis has been performed to assess how changing the correction factor affects the relative reduction in costs of fragmentation that is expected to result from each of the policy options.

Formula 2

[Cost to ensure accessibility of good / service sold across borders] = [Total cost of accessibility (CAPEX + OPEX) based on one set of requirements (EU)] * [Proportion of turnover stemming from cross-border trade] * [Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified] * [Share of EU GDP of the identified countries] * [correction factor]

Step 3: Estimate the costs for understanding different accessibility requirements across borders

While the costs that are estimated as part of Step 2 reflect a more product-related cost element, i.e. costs for the physical adaptation of the product or various production processes in order to comply with national requirements, they do not take into account the organisational costs for identifying, reading and analysing national accessibility requirements in other countries.

Therefore, an additional, assumed share of [Cost to ensure accessibility of good/service sold across borders] is added in step 3 accounting for these extra costs.

Formula 3

[Costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders] = [Cost to ensure accessibility of good / service sold across borders] * [Additional accessibility costs due to understanding of legislation]

1.3.1.2 Baseline scenario estimates

The above three steps and formulas are then also applied, in principle, for the quantitative assessment of the baseline scenario in and until 2020.

The difference to the problem assessment calculations is that now the estimated figures for 2020 are used. Thus, the base numbers for the baseline scenario are the estimated 2020 market volume, which is estimated by multiplying the 2011 data by a projected growth rate specific to each good or service, the number of EU Member States that are expected to have legislation in place by 2020, as well as the respective share of GDP of these countries.

1.3.1.3 Quantitative assessment of the policy option

Policy Option 1: Baseline scenario

The cost in EUR of the baseline scenario is calculated as the sum of the cost to ensure accessibility of good/service sold across borders in 2020 (formula 2 using 2020 numbers) and the costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders in 2020 (formula 3 using 2020 numbers).

Formula 4

[Costs of Policy Option 1] = [Cost to ensure accessibility of good / service sold across borders in 2020] + [Costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders in 2020]

Policy Option 2: Recommendation

The cost or benefit of an EU Recommendation that a certain number of EU Member States will follow is also calculated based on the cost to ensure accessibility of good/service sold across borders and the costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders. What differs in the calculation is that the "country-factor" is reduced to take account of the reduction in the number of different standards that results from a number of Member States applying the recommendation, so that there are no additional costs of fragmentation when trading cross-border with these states.

Formula 5

[Saving of Policy Option 2] = [Costs of Policy Option 1 (Formula 4)] – [Total cost of accessibility (CAPEX + OPEX) (Formula1)] * [Share of Proportion of turnover stemming from cross-border trade] * [share of GDP for relevant countries] * ([number of all states relevant in the scenario] – [number of states that apply recommendation] + 1) * (correction factor) + [costs of understanding different requirements in MS (Formula 3)]

Policy Option 3: Directive applicable to Member States that have requirements in place

Policy Option 3 aims at harmonising requirements through a Directive applicable to Member States that regulate accessibility of the selected goods and services. Therefore, the cost or benefit in EUR is equal to the cost or benefit in EUR of the Policy Option 2 scenario, in which all Member States that are expected to have requirements in place adopt the EU Recommendation. Compared to the baseline, the costs of fragmentation due to different national requirements are eliminated completely, but firms still face the costs of making goods accessible in the Member States with accessibility requirements.

Formula 6

[Savings of Policy Option 3] = [Costs of Policy Option 1 (Formula 4)] – [total costs of accessibility (CAPEX+OPEX) (Formula 1)] * [proportion of turnover stemming from cross-border trade] * [share of GDP for relevant countries]

Policy Option 4: Directive applicable to all Member States

As Policy Option 4 aims at a full harmonisation of accessibility requirements on the EU level, further costs will have to be incurred by firms in those states which have not regulated until then, which will reduce the savings under Policy Option 3.

Formula 7

[Savings of Policy Option 4] = [Savings of Policy Option 3 (Formula 6)] – [Total costs of accessibility (CAPEX + OPEX) (Formula 1)] * (1 - [share of GDP of relevant states under Policy Option 3])

1.3.2 Bottom-up cases: General approach to estimates

1.3.2.1 eBooks

The costs in the eBooks case are based on the assumption that providing accessibility features costs 400 EUR on average per title, and that the additional marginal costs of supplying an eBook with accessibility features relative to an inaccessible eBook are zero.

In order to calculate the total cost of accessibility, this cost estimate is multiplied with the total number of eBook titles published per year which, in turn, is extrapolated from available data in the following way:

Formula 8

[Total cost of accessibility based on one set of requirements (EU)] = [One-off costs

of accessible eBooks] * (Total Number of eBook- titles published in 2011 in the EU

([Number of ebook titles published in France and Germany in 2011] / [Published

printed book titles in Germany and France in 2011]) * [Number of printed book

titles published in the EU in 2011])

1.3.2.2 Websites

CAPEX and OPEX of accessibility per website are extrapolated based on the number of

websites in a certain industry 4 (this is also applied for the website-subcases under online retail,

hospitality, banking and transport). The number of inaccessible websites is deduced from the total number of websites in the respective market reduced by the number of accessible websites.

Then, the costs associated with accessibility are calculated by multiplying the difference between the costs of accessible websites and the costs of inaccessible websites with the number of websites that is currently expected to be inaccessible. This approach therefore does not take account of the fact that different websites may already be equipped with more or less accessibility features.

Formula 9

[Total cost of accessibility (CAPEX + OPEX) based on one set of requirements

(EU)] = ([One-off costs of accessible websites] + [Ongoing costs of accessible

websites] – ([One-off costs of inaccessible websites] + [Ongoing costs of

inaccessible websites])) * (Estimated number of inaccessible websites ([Total

Number of websites] – [Estimated number of accessible websites]))

4

 It is assumed that the number of websites is equal to the number of businesses in a certain industry, i.e. every

business has one website.

1.3.2.3 Architect Services

In the case of architect services the bottom-up approach differs significantly from the topdown approach as only the costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders could be estimated. The main reasons for the unfeasibility of estimating costs of accessibility for an average facility were that no quantitative data on the average costs of refurbishment per type of facility could be identified and the significant differences between the facilities.

The approach taken (and also applied for the subsequent analysis under banking, hospitality and transport) extrapolates the costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders based on fixed average costs for architect services per working day (i.e. labour costs), the number of working days, full time equivalents (FTEs), and the number of working days it takes to understand legislative requirements per project. Furthermore, the share of facilities that need to be replaced/refurbished per year and the number of facilities relevant for

the case is taken into account, as well as the share of GDP for the relevant countries 5 and the

share of architect services that is assumed to be procured cross-border.

Formula 10

[Costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders] =

[Average costs for architect services per working hour] * [Number of working days]

* [Number of FTEs] * [Number of working hours per day] * [Share of facilities that

need to be replaced or refurbished per year] * [Number of facilities relevant for the

case] * [Share of GDP of relevant countries] * [Share of architect services that is

assumed to be procured cross-border]

No CAGR has been applied to the calculations since it is assumed that the number of facilities can be expected to remain constant until 2020.

The policy options in the case of architect services basically have been assessed in the same way as in the other cases. However, concerning policy option 2, an estimated share of 50% of Member states assumed to apply the EU-recommendation is used.

5

  It has to be noted that it is assumed that all EU Member States have accessibility requirements in place.

However, the number of countries is not taken into account for the calculations as the (extraopolated)

number of facilities in the EU is already included.

1.3.2.4 Telecommunications Services

While following the bottom-up logic as described above, the calculation of the estimates of the total cost of accessibility (CAPEX+OPEX) differs from this approach.

At first, it is assumed that these services are especially relevant for deaf citizens so that the relevant market turnover of telecom providers has been adjusted with the share of deaf people in the total population [relevant market size]. Furthermore, it has to be noted that only relay services and accessible access to emergency services for persons with disabilities is covered and are assumed to account together for 100% of the relevant market.

In the problem assessment, due to a lack of data for emergency services, the total annual costs of relay and emergency services for persons with disabilities have been extrapolated based on data available for relay services only. Moreover, it has been assumed that costs for emergency services are equal to the costs for relay services.

Step 1:

• a) 

  [Share of telecom services market size that can be attributed to relay services] = [Annual cost of relay services in UK] * [Countries in which relay services are provided according to BEREC and own further research] / [Relevant market size]

• b) 

  [Share of telecom services market size that can be attributed to emergency services] = [Annual cost of relay services in UK in EUR] * [Countries in which emergency services are provided according to BEREC and own further research] / [Relevant market size]

Step 2:

• a) 

  [Market share of relay services in EUR] = [Share of telecom services market size that can be attributed to relay services (Formula 1a)] * [Share of GDP of the countries in which relay services are provided according to the BEREC report and further research] * [Relevant market size]

• b) 

  [Market share of emergency services in EUR] = [Share of telecom services market size that can be attributed to emergency services (Formula 1b)] * [Share of GDP of the countries emergency services are provided according to the BEREC report and further research] * [Total market size of the telecom services sector]

Step 3:

[Total cost of accessibility (CAPEX + OPEX) based on one set of requirements in the relevant Member States] = [Market share of relay services in EUR] + [Market share of Since in the current situation, telecom providers only serve national markets, businesses do not incur [Cost to ensure accessibility of good/service sold across borders] and [Costs of understanding different accessibility requirements across borders].

For the baseline scenario calculations, the problem assessment figure of the [Total cost of accessibility (CAPEX + OPEX)] has been extrapolated to a scenario in which 20 Member States have different relay services and accessible access to emergency services in place. The further calculation process follows the same approach as the top-down cases.

B - I MPACT ANALYSIS FOR EACH SELECTED GOOD AND SERVICE

AND PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

1. Computers and Operating Systems .................................................................................... 17

2. Television ...................................................................................................................... 25

3. Telecommunications (telephony services and related terminal equipment) ............................ 34

4. eBooks .......................................................................................................................... 48

5. Private Sector websites ................................................................................................... 56

6. Architect Services .......................................................................................................... 59

7. Self-Service Terminals .................................................................................................... 60

8. eCommerce ................................................................................................................... 70

9. Banking Services ........................................................................................................... 78

10. Transport – Air ............................................................................................................. 94

11. Transport – Rail .......................................................................................................... 109

12. Transport - Bus ........................................................................................................... 120

13. Transport – Maritime ................................................................................................... 134

14. Hospitality Services ...................................................................................................... 149

15. Public Procurement ..................................................................................................... 159

1. Computers and Operating Systems

1.2 Base figures

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Market turnover in 2011 165,000,000,000

CAGR 4.8%

Market turnover in 2020 251,614,397,508

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 10%

Proportion of turnover stemming from cross 50%

border trade

Share of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

Countries for which legislation could be identified

In 2011 2

In 2020 (extrapolation) 6

Correction factor 25.0%

Share of GDP for relevant countries

 In 2011 21.0%

 In 2020

2 Member States have legislation in place 21.0%

6 Member States have legislation in place 33.6%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100.0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

1.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Computers are nowadays imperative for work, communication and entertainment and constitute an important means for consumption and relations. Furthermore, and especially from a consumer's perspective, computers can be viewed as an initial step for the accessibility chain since they enable further accessible services (assistive software, e-Commerce etc).

When manufacturers ensure on one hand provide a platform for the interoperability of peripheral devices (e.g. adaptive keyboard, Braille display, assistive software such as screen readers) with mainstream computers and operating systems, and include in the devices accessibility featuresrather than making them accessible without having to connect peripheral assistive technologies, it results in additional costssavings for the consumers. Indeed, prices of accessibility kitsassistive technologies normally double the price of mainstream accessible solutions. Incompatibility between mainstream accessible solutions with assistive technology is a problem for users who are faced with the need to invest in very expensive new assistive solutions with the releases of new mainstream technologiesones. This means that in the absence of common accessibility features in computers and operating systems, disabled consumers currently face higher costs, for purchasing peripheral assistive technologies, than other consumers.

1.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

1.3.1 Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 1: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Computers and operating

systems)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering

trade in the area of selected Computers and Operating Systems can be expected to be

goods and services and in adopted in a range from 2 to 27 Member States based on

the area of public the current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of the Computers and Operating Systems and due to

procurement the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD 6 . The midrange

scenario is 6 countries.

0 0

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the Computers and Operating Systems will be provided acrossborders in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and 0 0 new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices and in the area of border trade. Differences between legislation in the

public procurement countries are likely to have a negative impact on the industry.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 2: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Computers and operating systems)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

0 The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning Computers and Operating Systems is likely to

have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of computers. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to have access to computer-based online services such as eGovernment services, online

6

 Based on an examination of the current situation in nine Member States, technical accessibility legislation has

been for 2 Member States Spain and Italy.

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

banking services or eCommerce provided through Computers and Operating Systems.

Elderly

While it can be expected that the take-up by elderly of Computers and Operating Systems will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible Computers and Operating Systems are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers. However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility needs among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population the actual number of people that will likely benefit is still considerably high.

General population

The level of accessibility of Computers and Operating Systems is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts The level of accessibility of Computers and Operating Systems for is not

0 likely to have any major environmental impacts. Potentially, less paperbased processes will result from the increased use of Computers and

Operating System.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

1.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 3: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Computers and operating

systems)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy specific Objectives (assessment (partial coverage) (full coverage)

criteria)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the  ()     

area of public procurement

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy specific Objectives (assessment (partial coverage) (full coverage)

criteria)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

Overall score 3 2 6 6 8 4

Average score 1.5 1 3 3 4 2

Table 4: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Computers and operating systems)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 5: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Computers and operating systems))

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the It is assumed that a range of two to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure countries (6) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

selected goods and the accessibility of Computers and accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in those six countries that are combination with the mutual recognition

services and in the area Operating Systems in terms of the baseline scenario will follow the expected to have accessibility requirements in principle, result in an elimination of costs for

of public procurement their user interface, functionality Recommendation. place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of business that are due to variations between and information about those those costs for business that are due to variations national accessibility requirements.

features: Costs related to diverging national accessibility between national accessibility requirements.

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. However, at the same time, business in those 21

• image and turnover; and This would mean that local businesses that are countries that are not expected to have adopted

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

• the interfacing of the good border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border have not been adopted may face lower costs than additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the

with assistive devices. trade has been fixed at 50%. companies that are based in countries where degree that they are not already doing so on a

accessibility requirements are in place. This said, voluntary basis). the companies that do not provide accessible goods

may miss out on a larger consumer group. This would in turn lead to a playing field for

companies, which is expected to have a positive It is expected that the cross-border trade could impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade. increase.

The policy option is expected to have a positive impact on cross-border trade.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

To increase competition Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be

among industry in the in those countries that are covered by the common in those countries that are covered by the common expected in those countries that are covered by

area of selected goods accessibility requirements, i.e. two to six countries. accessibility requirements, i.e. six countries. Given the common accessibility requirements, across and services and in the Given that cross-border trade is expected to that cross-border trade is expected to increase and the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected

area of public increase and the costs for understanding different the costs for understanding different requirements to increase and the costs for understanding requirements across Member States has been across Member States has been removed, more different requirements across Member States has

procurement removed, more companies may enter the market. companies may enter the market. With six Member been removed, more companies may enter the

The extent to which new market entry can be States, representing 33.6% of EU GDP, transposing market. expected to spur competition is linked to amount of this Directive it is expected that new market entry

countries that follow the Recommendation, i.e. the will increase competition due to lower costs and an Under this policy option the Internal Market for more Member States adopt the technical effective increase of the market. However, the computers and operating systems is effectively requirements proposed in the Recommendation impact is expected to be low given that the market based on common accessibility requirements and the more likely it is that new market entrants for computer and operating system is dominated by therefore not only is new market entry likely compete on the internal market. However, the a limited number of global companies. based on lower costs (as in policy option 3). impact is expected to be low given that the market However, the impact is expected to be low given for computer and operating systems is dominated that the market for computers and operating by a limited number of global companies. systems is dominated by a limited number of

global companies.

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage where accessibility requirements are in place. described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

of the policy option) accessible likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options.

Computers and Operating Consumers that use computers and operating expected increased number of countries that would Systems in terms of their user systems cross-border in countries where have the same requirements in place. interface, functionality and accessibility requirements are in place would also information about those features: benefit.

The introduction of the relevant accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

transaction costs.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. Improving accessibility of Computers and Operating Systems may lead to a minor environmental impact due to less paper-based processes, but more

electricity consumption. In sum, the level of accessibility of Computers and Operating Systems is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

2. Television

2.1. Base figures

2.1.1. Digital Television (DTT) equipment

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Market turnover in 2011 2.200.000.000

CAGR 1,8%

Market turnover in 2020 2.493.241.091

Share of one-off development costs 0,1%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 8

In 2020 (extrapolation)

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 24

Extrapolation to EU level 27

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

8 Member States have legislation in place 76,6%

 In 2020

8 Member States have legislation in place 76,6%

24 Member States have legislation in place 96,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0% Correction factor 15,0%

2.1.2. TV broadcasting accessibility services

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Market turnover in 2011 84.700.000.000

CAGR 3,6%

Market turnover in 2020 116.445.097.542

Share of development costs 10%

Share of accessibility costs 10%

Share of on-going costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 20%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 As identified in country sample 8

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 24

Extrapolation to EU level 27

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

8 Member States have legislation in place 88,9%

 In 2020

8 Member States have legislation in place 80,0%

24 Member States have legislation in place 96,8%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 20,0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1,0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

2.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Research suggests that the availability of broadcasting in terms of coverage is nearly complete, with practically the whole planet covered by a signal . However, television is far from being fully accessible to persons with disabilities. In spite of barriers encountered even when using the related equipment such as set-top boxes and remote controls, the majority of persons with disabilities are consumers of TV programming. Disabled persons are dependent of the provision of access services such as subtitles and audio description to be able to enjoy TV programming on equal basis with others. They also need accessible electronic programming guides, user interfaces, remote controls...

Notwithstanding variances in the levels of accessibility services that broadcasters are obliged to provide, customers with disabilities may also be faced with technical issues on how these access services are supported by digital TV equipment. There is a large variance in the degree to which the disables' groups benefit from and require accessible features in the equipment and the availability of access services. For many deaf or hard of hearing users, a lack of access to captions results in no possibility of perceiving the spoken content in a programme. For many blind people it is completely impossible to use on-screen menus without text-to-speech support.

Common accessibility solutions in the EU for broadcasting services and receivers including remote controls will permit disabled consumers to be able to watch television when travelling to other EU countries using familiar accessible equipment or to enjoy their prefer foreign channel at home.

2.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

2.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 6: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Television)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering

trade in the area of selected both DTT equipment and broadcasting services can be

goods and services and in expected to be adopted in a range from 8 to 27 Member

the area of public States based on the current availability of accessibility

procurement legislation under the UNCRPD. The mid-range scenario is 24 countries.

0 0 As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the

DTT equipment will be provided across-borders in 2020. With regard to the cross-border provision of broadcasting services, the percentage is, on average, 19. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and 0 0 new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices and in the area of border trade. Differences between legislation in the

public procurement countries are likely to have a negative impact on the industry.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 7: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Television)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning DTT equipment and broadcasting services is likely

to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of both goods and services. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to have access TV through DTT equipment and broadcasting services.

Elderly

The take-up of elderly of TV broadcasting and DTT equipment is expected

0 to be relatively higher than the rest of the population, therefore the types

of benefits that result from accessible TV broadcasting and DTT equipment are likely to be higher for the group of elderly people. Therefore, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly more than disabled consumers.

General population

The level of accessibility of DTT equipment and broadcasting services is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons. However benefits for example from subtitles for learning foreign languages remain important.

Environmental impacts 0 The level of accessibility of DTT equipment and broadcasting services is not

likely to have any major environmental impacts.

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Overall score 0

Average score 0

2.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) equipment

Table 8: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (DTT, Television)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(Assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the  ()     

area of public procurement

Overall score 3 2 6 6 8 4

Average score 1.5 1 3 3 4 2

Table 9: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (DTT, Television)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups)    ()

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Linear TV broadcasting accessibility services

Table 10: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Broadcasting, Television)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()  ()    

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the  ()  ()    

area of public procurement

Overall score 5 5 6 6 8 2

Average score 2.5 2.5 3 3 4 1

Table 11: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Broadcasting, Television)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups)    ()

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 12: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Television)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the It is assumed that for both DTT equipment and Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure broadcasting services a range of eight to all of those requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

selected goods and the accessibility of DTT equipment countries (24), that are expected to adopt technical would be applicable in those 24 countries that are combination with the mutual recognition

services and in the area mainly in terms of their user accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in expected to have accessibility requirements in principle, result in an elimination of costs for

of public procurement interface and remote controls a the baseline scenario will follow the well as their capacity related to Recommendation. place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of business that are due to variations between

subtitles and audio description those costs for business that are due to variations national accessibility requirements.

and their interoperability with Costs related to diverging national accessibility assistive technology and in requirements are expected to decrease accordingly.

between national accessibility requirements. However, at the same time, business in those 3

services mainly on subtitles and This may in turn have a positive impact on cross This would mean that businesses that are active in countries that are not expected to have adopted audio description and other border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border countries where accessibility requirements have accessibility requirements by 2020 would face functionality addressing the needs trade has been fixed at 50% for DDT equipment. not been adopted may face lower costs than additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the

of persons with disabilities. . companies that are based in countries where degree that they are not already doing so on a

accessibility requirements are in place. This said, voluntary basis).

the companies that do not provide accessible goods This would in turn lead to a level playing field for may miss out on a larger consumer group. companies, which is expected to have a positive

It is expected that the cross-border trade could impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

increase up. . The policy option is expected to have a positive impact on cross-border trade.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

To increase competition Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be

among industry in the in those countries that are covered by the common in those countries that are covered by the common expected in those countries that are covered by

area of selected goods accessibility requirements, i.e. eight to 24. Given accessibility requirements, i.e. 24 countries. Given the common accessibility requirements, across

and services and in the that cross-border trade is expected to increase and that cross-border trade is expected to increase and the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected

area of public the costs for understanding different requirements the costs for understanding different requirements across Member States has been removed, more across Member States has been removed, more to increase and the costs for understanding

procurement companies may enter the market. The extent to companies may enter the market. With 24 Member different requirements across Member States has

which new market entry can be expected to spur States, representing 96.3% (in the case of DTT been removed, more companies may enter the

competition is linked to amount of countries that equipment) or 96.8% (in the case of broadcasting

follow the Recommendation, i.e. the more Member services) of EU GDP, transposing this Directive it is market. States adopt the technical requirements proposed expected that new market entry will increase Under this policy option the Internal Market for in the Recommendation the more likely it is that competition due to lower costs and an effective DTT equipment and broadcasting services is new market entrants compete on the internal increase of the market. effectively based on common accessibility market. requirements and therefore not only is new

market entry likely based on lower costs (as in policy option 3).

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage where accessibility requirements are in place. described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

of the policy option) accessible likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options.

DTT equipment in mainly terms of Consumers that use accessible DDT equipment and

their user interface and remote expected increased number of countries that would broadcasting services cross-border in countries

controls a well as their capacity where accessibility requirements are in place would have the same requirements in place.

related to subtitles and audio also benefit.

description and their

interoperability with assistive The introduction of the relevant accessibility technology and in services mainly requirements will lead to that a higher number of on subtitles and audio description disabled consumers may benefit from reduced and other functionality addressing transaction costs.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

the needs of persons with disabilities..

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. Improving accessibility of DTT equipment and broadcasting services is not expected to have significant environmental impacts.

3. Telecommunications (telephony

services and related terminal equipment)

3.1. Base figures

3.1.1. Telephony Services

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

 Total Market turnover in 2011 274.900.000.000

Share of deaf people 4,78%

Total relevant market size in 2011 13.140.220.000

CAGR 0,26%

Total relevant market size in 2020 13.450.918.428

Annual cost of relay services (in the UK) 10.101.945

Countries in which relay services are provided according to 7

BEREC and own further research

Countries in which emergency services are provided according 10

to BEREC and own further research

Share of GDP of Member States in which a service is provided in 2011

Relay services 56,8%

Accessible emergency services 43,2%

Share of GDP of Member States in which a service is provided in 2020

Relay services 100,0%

Accessible emergency services 100,0%

Proportion of turnover stemming from cross-border trade 30%

Number of relevant countries in 2020

PO1 and PO3 20

PO2 15

PO4 27

Total EU share of GDP 100%

Number of countries in Eu27 27

Average share per country 3,7%

Share of GDP for 2020

PO1 and PO3 74,1%

Hypothetical PO2 55,6%

Hypothetical PO4 100,0%

Additional accessibility costs due to different requirements in 1%

Member States (understanding of legislation)

Correction factor 100%

3.1.2. Related Terminal equipment

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

 Smart phone Market turnover in 2011 31.659.436.588 €

Share of unit sales in 2011

Smart phones 31,8%

"Feature phones" 68,2%

"Feature phones" Market turnover in 2011 67.823.264.560

Total Market turnover in 2011 99.482.701.147

CAGR 6,3% Market turnover in 2020 172.403.845.812

Share of development costs (analogy to computers case) 5%

Share of accessibility costs (analogy to computers case) 1%

Share of ongoing costs (analogy to computers case) 10%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border trade 50%

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 3

In 2011 3

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 3

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 6

Extrapolation to EU27 level 27

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

3 Member States have legislation in place 23,5%

 In 2020

3 Member States have legislation in place 23,5%

6 Member States have legislation in place 43,6%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100%

Correction factor 25%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to understanding 1%

different accessibility requirements across borders

3.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Disabled consumers can currently not benefit of a genuine Internal Market for accessible mobile telecommunication devices and services. The limited technical accessibility requirements in most EU Member States lead to an insufficient integration of accessibility features in mainstream mobile telecommunication devices and services. In addition, where such accessibility features are provided in mobile devices, they are not necessarily interoperable across brands, across service operators or across borders due to a lack of EU level standardisation. Interoperability issues – notably when travelling across national borders within the Internal Market – may worsen in future with the introduction of diverging national technical accessibility requirements intended to ensure the compliance with the UNCRPD. Users with disabilities will benefit from being able to call cross border with friend family and for work either directly or using relay services. They will be able to call the emergency number when travelling to other Member State and will be able to use the mobile devices and related services with similar accessibility features.

3.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

3.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 13: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Telephony services)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Currently, in the EU a number of Member States have

trade in the area of selected implemented accessible telecommunication services

goods and services and in through a number of different measures including relay

the area of public services and accessible emergency services. However, the interoperability of these services across borders is not

procurement ensured nor addressed.

In the current situation this leads to barriers for consumers who cannot make use of these services across borders. Also Industry that wants to offer their services in other Member States needs to adapt their accessibility

0 0 solutions. Ensuring cross border interoperability of Total

conversations solutions for example to be used in emergency services would require adaptation to national technical rules.

In the baseline scenario the assumption has been made that 20 Member States would have in place relay services and accessible emergency services based on different standards and solutions and that these Member States would act to make their services interoperable without agreement on a common standard.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

solutions and standards for these services, it is assumed that 30% of the telephony for the relevant market occurs across borders. It is expected that the differences between national services have a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition Given that relay services and emergency services are

among industry in the area organised centrally at national level this is not expected to

of selected goods and 0 0 have any impact on competition of those specific solutions

services and in the area of but this could be an issue if companies would decide to

public procurement market these solutions as part of their mainstream products for example competing with messaging.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Or a

Table 14: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Telephony Services)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

In the baseline scenario the assumed evolution of Member States making relay services and accessible emergency services interoperable would mean that people with a disability would now be able to access these services on an equal basis compared to other consumers including cross border and communicate with services providers using their preferred solution.

0 Elderly

As far as the elderly population is considered the group that would benefit by gaining access to telecommunication services on an equal basis compared to other consumers would be mainly those elderly that have some type of hearing impairment.

General population

It is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts The cross-border interoperability and availability of relay services and

0 accessible emergency service terminals is not likely to have any major

environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

3.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 15: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Telecommunication Services)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of selected goods and       services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the 0 0 0 0 0 0

area of public procurement

Overall score 1 1 3 3 4 3

Average score 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 2 1.5

Table 16: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Telecommunication Services)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

3.3.3. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 17: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Telephony Mobile

Terminals)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Currently, in the EU accessibility requirements covering

trade in the area of selected Terminals has been placed through telecommunications

goods and services and in operators and focuses on public pay phones and fixed

the area of public phones. These types of terminals are becoming obsolete and are being replaced by mobile devices. Furthermore,

procurement the Mobile Terminals market is a global one and

accessibility requirements established in the United States under Section 255 have impacts at a global scale. The United States is reviewing the accessibility requirements and introducing new ones in the 21 st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. This will lead to new accessibility requirements for mobile terminals. It is this expected that Member States, in order to fulfil their obligations under the UN Convention will shift their focus to the accessibility of mobile telephony terminals. Crossborder trade barriers might arise if Member States would

0 0 regulate in this area up to 2020 based on their commitments under the UNCRPD. Furthermore, due to

the likely future changes in the United States the industry may face new costs to ensure accessibility of mobile terminals. Barriers to trade would occur if Member States would adopt accessibility requirements that differ from those established in the United States.

Therefore, in the baseline scenario the assumption has been made that 6 Member States would introduce different accessibility requirements by 2020. As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the Mobile Terminals will be provided across-borders in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition Possible variations between national technical accessibility

among industry in the area requirements are likely to make it difficult for industry and

of selected goods and 0 0 new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade. Such differences in accessibility

public procurement requirements in the countries are likely to have a negative impact on the industry in particular in terms of costs.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 18: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Telecommunication Mobile Terminals)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

The ongoing revision of accessibility requirements in the United States and the countries that are assumed to adopt accessibility requirements concerning Mobile Terminals is likely to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility. This means that more people with a disability will have access to mobile telephony means.

Elderly

0 While it can be expected that the take-up by elderly of Mobile Terminals

will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. The types of benefits that result from accessible Mobile Terminals are likely to be similar to those of disabled people.

General population

The level of accessibility of Mobile Terminals is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons although some accessibility features will help people ion the move.

Environmental impacts 0 The level of accessibility of Mobile Terminals is not likely to have any major

environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

3.3.4. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 19: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Telephony Mobile Terminals)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the  ()     

area of public procurement

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

Overall score 3 2 6 6 6 4

Average score 1.5 1 3 3 3 2

Table 20: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Telephony Mobile Terminals

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 21: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (services)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Accessibility feature of telephony For telephony services 20 countries are assumed to Under this policy option common accessibility for Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of services would be available across put in place accessible services basing on relay telephony services and in particular relay services would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

selected goods and the EU and in particular relay services and emergency services by 2020 (as and emergency services and the mutual recognition combination with the mutual recognition

services and in the area assumed in the baseline scenario). It is assumed services and emergency services principle would be applicable in those 20 countries principle, result in an elimination of costs for

of public procurement that 15 will follow the Recommendation to make would be made interoperable and these interoperable across borders. that are assumed to have these services in place by business that are due to variations between

accessible in terms of the 2020. This would result in a reduction of those national accessibility requirements. Costs related to diverging national solutions and

technical characteristics of their standards are expected to decrease accordingly. costs for business that are due to variations

However, at the same time, business in those 7 applications, user interface and between national standards and solutions.

information about accessibility This may in turn have a positive impact on crosscountries

that are assumed not to have accessible

features. border use. In the baseline scenario, cross-border This would mean that based on the remaining

telephony services and in particular relay services

trade has been fixed at 30%. differences between solutions and standards and emergency services in place by 2020 would

between countries higher costs are still incurred. face additional costs for putting these in place.

Similar to PO2, it is expected that the cross-border This would in turn lead to a level playing field for use could increase. companies, which is expected to have a positive

impact on the possibilities for cross-border use.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

To increase competition N/A N/A N/A among industry in the area of selected goods and services and in the area of public procurement

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage where accessible telephony services and in described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

of the policy option) accessible particular relay services and emergency services are likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options. telephony services and in assumed to be in place and made interoperable. expected increased number of countries that would particular relay services and have accessible telephony services and in particular

emergency services in terms of Consumers that use these services cross-border interoperable relay services and accessible the technical characteristics of would benefit. emergency services in place.

their applications, user interface The introduction of the relevant accessibility and information about requirements will lead to that a higher number of accessibility features. disabled consumers may benefit from reduced

transaction costs.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. Improving accessibility of Mobile Terminals is not expected to have significant environmental impacts.

Table 22: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Telecommunication Mobile Terminals)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the For Mobile Terminals a range of 3 to 6 countries are Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure assumed to adopt technical accessibility requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

selected goods and the accessibility of Mobile requirements by 2020 (as assumed in the baseline would be applicable in those 6 countries that are combination with the mutual recognition

services and in the area scenario). It is assumed that some or all of these Terminals in terms of their user assumed to have accessibility requirements in place principle, result in an elimination of costs for

of public procurement countries will follow the Recommendation. interface, interoperability with by 2020. This would result in a reduction of those business that are due to variations between

assistive solutions and Costs related to diverging national accessibility costs for business that are due to variations national accessibility requirements.

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. information on their accessibility. between national accessibility requirements.

This may in turn have a positive impact on cross However, at the same time, business in those 21 border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border This would mean that businesses that are active in countries that are assumed not to have adopted trade has been fixed at 50% for Mobile Terminals. countries where accessibility requirements have accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

not been adopted may face lower costs than additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the companies that are based in countries where degree that they are not already doing so on a accessibility requirements are in place. This said, voluntary basis).

the companies that do not provide accessible goods This would in turn lead to a level playing field for may miss out on a larger consumer group. companies, which is expected to have a positive

Similar to PO2, it is expected that the cross-border impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

trade could increase. The policy option is expected to have a positive impact on cross-border trade.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

To increase competition Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be

among industry in the in those countries that are covered by the common in those countries that are covered by the common expected in those countries that are covered by

area of selected goods accessibility requirements, i.e. three to six accessibility requirements, i.e. six countries. Given the common accessibility requirements, across and services and in the countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected that cross-border trade is expected to increase and the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected

area of public to increase and the costs for understanding the costs for understanding different requirements to increase and the costs for understanding different requirements across Member States has across Member States has been removed, more different requirements across Member States has

procurement been removed, more companies may enter the companies may enter the market. With six Member been removed, more companies may enter the

market. The extent to which new market entry can States, representing 43.6% of EU GDP, transposing market. be expected to spur competition is linked to this Directive it is expected that new market entry

amount of countries that follow the will increase competition due to lower costs and an Under this policy option the Internal Market for Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States effective increase of the market. However, the Mobile Terminals is effectively based on common adopt the technical requirements proposed in the impact is expected to be low given that the market accessibility requirements and therefore not only Recommendation the more likely it is that new Mobile Terminals is dominated by a limited number is new market entry likely based on lower costs market entrants compete on the internal market. of global companies. (as in policy option 3).

However, the impact is expected to be low given that the market for Mobile Terminals is dominated by a limited number of global companies.

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage where accessibility requirements are assumed to be described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

of the policy option) accessible in place. likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options. Mobile Terminals in terms of their expected increased number of countries that would

user interface, interoperability Consumers that use accessible Mobile Terminals have the same requirements in place. with assistive solutions and cross-border in countries where accessibility information on their accessibility. requirements are in place would also benefit.

The introduction of the relevant accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

transaction costs.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. Improving accessibility of Mobile Terminals is not expected to have significant environmental impacts.

4. eBooks

4.1. Base figures

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Market turnover in 2011 798.000.000

CAGR 11,0%

Market turnover in 2020 2.041.313.466

One-off costs for eBooks accessibility features 400

(per title)

Published eBook titles in Germany & France (in 47.000

2011)

Published printed book titles in France & 123.950

Germany (in2011)

Number of printed book titles published in 2011 530.000

in the EU

Total annual accessibility costs for eBook titles 80.387.253

published in EU in 2011

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10,0%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 7

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 3

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 21

Extrapolation to EU level 27 Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

7 Member States have legislation in place 77,0%

 In 2020

7 Member States have legislation in place 77,0%

21 Member States have legislation in place 93,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30,0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1,0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

4.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Compared to the USA, the mainstream market for eBooks in Europe is less mature . Some authors have argued that this can be explained by relatively few affordable e-readers, insufficient availability of eBooks (as compared to the print offering), and too high prices for eBooks in Europe. In immature markets, the specific needs of smaller customer sub-groups such as blind or dyslexic people are often not sufficiently taken into account, because market players first focus on the most profitable target groups. Where no legal obligations exist, the incentives for market players to invest in accessibility features remain very limited. As a result, disabled consumers are insufficiently served by the market.

Publishers still discuss the merits of different file formats. Formats are especially important to consumers, as few eReader or eBook companies in Europe provide full interoperability with all formats available on the market. This means that consumers have to be aware of the file type and compatibility with their own devices as well as the accessibility features they contain. In some cases the accessibility features which are needed for blind persons to operate text-to-speech programmes are not ensured. End users will benefit from accessible electronic version of books without the need to retrofit the books adding the recorder voice as it is happening now as for example text to speech and the software/reader will support this facility.

4.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

4.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 23: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, E-Books)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Over the next years, accessibility requirements can be

trade in the area of selected expected to be adopted in a range from 7 to 27 Member

goods and services and in States based on the growing market of eBooks, the

the area of public current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of copyrights and due to the obligations for the MS under the

procurement UNCRPD 7 .

The accessibility requirements are likely to vary between the MS, leading to barriers for businesses and resulting in costs (relating to in particular the need to understand the accessibility requirements in other countries and

0 0 necessary adaptations to the good). No specific information concerning the potential content of this

legislation is available. It can be assumed that some of these MS will only regulate the private or the public eBook market.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the trade in eBooks will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and 0 0 new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade.

public procurement

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

7 Based on an examination of the current situation in nine Member States, technical accessibility legislation has been

identified for educational books in Italy. Other Member States have made use of the exceptions under the copy

right legislation.

Table 24: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, E-Books)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

The accessibility of eBooks for disabled persons depends on a number of factors, including the format of the eBook and the degree to which this incorporates accessibility features. The accessibility of information on the accessibility of the eBooks is another factor that may impact on the (crossborder) purchasing of eBooks by disabled persons.

As concerns the current situation, the accessibility of the formats eBooks are provided in varies. ePub is considered as state of the art in terms of accessible eBooks formats. While this format is supported by many eReaders, one of the most popular eReaders, the Amazon Kindle, does not, for example, support this format. An overall positive development in relation to the accessibility of eBooks is expected by 2020 as the market is still relatively new and rather rapid progress in relation to the technical functionalities – including the accessibility features – of the product is expected over the next years.

As noted above, according to the MeAC2 study, the current level of accessibility of eBooks in the EU is medium; the average among the countries surveyed being 32%. In line with technological development and the general development of the eBook market, it is expected that the

0 accessibility will increase up to 40% or 50% by 2020.

The take up rate has been estimated to be app. 13% by non-disabled persons and 10% by disabled persons, thus there is an estimated gap of app. 3%. It can be assumed that the take-up rate will increase up to 20 to 30% by 2020.

Elderly

Elderly are likely to consume less eBooks than younger consumers due to their more limited use of the Internet and ICT products. It is likely that there will be a positive trend in terms of the use of eBooks by elderly by 2020, in line with general consumption trends of eBooks among the general population and ICT in “overall” by elderly.

Problems and needs for elderly in relation to the accessibility of eBooks are

likely to be similar to those of disabled persons, depending on their

functional limitations.

General population

The level of accessibility of eBooks is unlikely to have any impacts on nondisabled persons although a lot of people benefit from some of the features for example related to screen enlargement.

Environmental impacts Printed books and eBooks both leave an environmental footprint. The per

book impact compared to printed books depends on user behaviour and the number of eBooks consumed. It can be noted that the energy used when reading eBooks is estimated to be relatively small compared to

0 manufacturing the device. The average printed book is responsible for app. 4 KG of greenhouse gas emissions. According to estimates, any reader

would have to offset 32 to 42 printed books to break even as regards the carbon footprint. It is expected that the consumption of eBooks will increase up until EU2020. A CAGR of 36.6% has been estimated. Clearly, this will have positive environmental impacts, including due to the availability of accessible eBooks. The extent of impacts by 2020 will in

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

addition to the consumption of eBooks be affected by the production of eReaders and the degree to which they are manufactured in an environmentally friendly way or not.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

4.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 25: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (E-Books)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the  ()     

area of public procurement

Overall score 3 1 6 6 8 4

Average score 1.5 1 3 3 4 2

Table 26: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (E-Books)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) 0  ()  ()

Environmental impacts 0 0 ()

Table 27: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (eBooks)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the It is assumed that one third (six) to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure / countries (21) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

selected goods and provide the following: accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in those 18 countries that are combination with the mutual recognition

services and in the area the baseline scenario will follow the expected to have accessibility requirements in principle, result in an elimination of costs for • Accessible information

of public procurement Recommendation. place by 2020. This would result in an elimination of business that are due to variations between concerning the good / those costs for business that are due to variations national accessibility requirements.

service Costs related to diverging national accessibility between national accessibility requirements.

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. However, at the same time, business in those

• Accessible online related This would mean that local businesses that are nineteen countries that are not expected to have

applications This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements adopted accessibility requirements by 2020 would

border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border

• Accessible functions in the have not been adopted may face lower costs than face additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to trade has been fixed at 10%.

companies that are based in countries where the degree that they are not already doing so on a

operation of the service accessibility requirements are in place. This said, voluntary basis). targeted to address the the companies that do not provide accessible goods needs of persons with may miss out on a large consumer group. This would in turn lead to a level playing field for

functional limitations companies, which is expected to have a positive

It is expected that the cross-border trade could impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade. increase. The policy option is expected to have a positive impact on cross-border trade

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

To increase competition Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in

among industry in the those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common

area of selected goods accessibility requirements, i.e. 3 countries. Given accessibility requirements, i.e. 7 countries. Given accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given and services and in the that cross-border trade is expected to increase and that cross-border trade is expected to increase and that cross-border trade is expected to increase

area of public the costs for understanding different requirements the costs for understanding different requirements and the costs for understanding different across Member States has been removed, more across Member States has been removed, more requirements across Member States has been

procurement companies may enter the market. The extent to companies may enter the market. With 7Member removed, more companies may enter the market.

which new market entry can be expected to spur States transposing this Directive it is expected that Under this policy option the Internal Market for competition is linked to amount of countries that new market entry is likely to increase competition accessible eBooks is effectively based on common follow the Recommendation, i.e. the more Member due to lower costs and an effective increase of the accessibility requirements and therefore not only States adopt the technical requirements proposed market. is new market entry likely based on lower costs in the Recommendation the more likely it is that (as in policy option 3) but also due to a larger new market entrants compete on the internal market overall internal market for accessible market. eBooks.

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be The benefits would be limited to those countries Disabled consumers across the EU would have The benefits are similar to those that can be

on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage where accessibility requirements are in place. access to accessible eBooks. expected to result due to the introduction of PO2.

of the policy option) accessible: Consumers that buy cross-border from countries Due to the increased competition that would result,

• Information concerning the where accessibility requirements are in place would prices may be reduced compared to the baseline accessibility of the good / also benefit. scenario.

service; The introduction of the relevant accessibility The introduction of the relevant accessibility

• Online-related applications; requirements is likely to have a limited positive requirements is likely to have a relatively strong impact on take up rates. positive impact on take up rates.

• Functions in the operation of the service targeted to

address the needs of persons with functional limitations

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. The expected increase in trade is likely to have an impact on the number of eBooks sold and used, which will leave an environmental footprint. The impact is

likely to be particularly high under those policy options where the strongest impacts on competition are expected, since this is likely to result in reduced sales

prices and higher sales turnovers. Based on this line of argumentation, the environmental impact is expected to be most significant under PO4, followed by

PO3 and PO4. All options are likely to lead to an increase compared to the baseline scenario. Due to a lack of data it has not been possible to calculate the

impact in quantitative terms.

5. Private sector websites

5.1. Base figures

Figures are provided as websites are key enablers for the accessibility of services and are

needed to calculate costs related to the services in coming sections

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Market turnover in 2011 251,464,000,000

CAGR 0%

Market turnover in 2020 251,464,000,000

One-off costs of accessible websites: (WCAG 2.0) 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessible websites: (WCAG 2.0) 1.989

Number of businesses in EU 936.915

Number of Spanish Businesses to which Spanish

accessibility legislation applies

Hospitality services 21000

Online retail 74699

Banking services 64

Bus transport 7475

Air transport 71

Maritime transport 218

Rail transport 32

Share of Spanish Businesses to which Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Hospitality services 50,0%

Online retail 50,0%

Banking services 90,0%

Bus transport 1,0%

Air transport 95,0%

Maritime transport 5,0%

Rail transport 90,0%

Total Number of businesses in Spain to which 48089

Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border trade 10%

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs of non-accessible websites 500

Number of accessible websites

Lower range estimate 8.656

Upper range estimate 28.950

Number of inaccessible websites

Lower range estimate 19.139

Upper range estimate 39.433

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

EU level 3

Using additional data 12

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member States has legislation in place 8,5 %

 In 2020

3 Member States have legislation in place 15,5%

12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0% Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5.0%

understanding different accessibility requirements

across borders

5.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Through the use of websites, consumers are able to collect and compare information, purchase products or book services, and take care of their financial matters while for

businesses, websites can be seen as a means to get into contact with consumers, advertise their products (in the widest sense), and also to be able to cut personnel costs. Hence, modern economy and societal life are not any longer thinkable without the Internet and the broad use of websites. This applies in particular to transport, online retail, banking,

and hospitality services since those are sectors that affect the everyday life of consumers and are a viable part of the EU economy.

6. Architect Services

6.1. Base figures

Figures are provided as websites are key enablers for the accessibility of services and are needed to calculate costs related to the services in coming sections

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Turnover in 2011 14.525.640.676

CAGR 0%

Turnover in 2020 14.525.640.676

Average costs for architect services per working hour 70

Number of working days 2

Number of FTEs 1

Number of working hours/day 8

Share of facilities that need to be replaced / refurbished per year 5,0%

Number of facilities relevant for the case in the problem assessment 578451

Share of architect services that is assumed to be procured cross-border 40,0%

Number of Member States that is expected to have legislation in place 27

Share of total EU GDP 100%

Share of Member States that is expected to apply the eventual EU 50% Recommendation

 Correction factor 100,0%

6.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

All EU Member States require built environment elements used in the provision of the services concerned to be designed to be accessible for persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, technical specifications for the accessibility requirements (for example with regard to ramps, doors, toilet room free space and stair cases) vary across Member States. The divergence of these requirements creates uncertainty for customers and limits the free movement of disabled persons and elderly persons.

Detailed impacts on consumers are considered in the cases covering hospitality services and transport services.

7. Self-Service Terminals

7.1. Base figures

SSTs: ATMs

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total production value of SSTs PRODCOM code 222,335,531

26201200 in 2011

Share that can be attributed to SSTs 66%

SSTs value in 2011 146,741,450

Share of production value that can be attributed 65%

to ATMs

Market turnover in 2011 95.381.943

CAGR 0.0%

Market turnover in 2020 95.381.943

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

 Number of countries for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 5

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 5

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 10 Extrapolation to EU level 15

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

5 Member States have legislation in place 54.3%

 In 2020

5 Member States have legislation in place 54.3%

10 Member States have legislation in place 73.2%

15 Member States have legislation in place 75,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100.0%

Correction factor 100.0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

SSTs: Ticketing machines

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total production value of “Point-of-sale 222,335,531

terminals, ATMs and similar machines capable of

being connected to a data processing machine

or network" PRODCOM code 26201200

Share that can be attributed to SSTs 66%

SSTs value in 2011 146,741,450

Share of production value that can be attributed 30%

to ATMs

Market turnover in 2011 44.022.435

CAGR 0%

Market turnover in 2020 44.022.435 Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

Number of countries for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 6

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 6

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 9

Extrapolation to EU level 18

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

 In 2020

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

9 Member States have legislation in place 68,5%

18 Member States have legislation in place 84,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 100.0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

SSTs: Check-in machines

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total production value of “Point-of-sale 222.335.531

terminals, ATMs and similar machines capable of

being connected to a data processing machine

or network" PRODCOM code 26201200

Share that can be attributed to SSTs 66%

SSTs value in 2011 146.741.450

Share of production value that can be attributed 5%

to ATMs

Market turnover in 2011 7.337.073

CAGR 0.0%

Market turnover in 2020 7.337.073

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 6

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 6

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 9

Extrapolation to EU level 18

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011 6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

 In 2020

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

9 Member States have legislation in place 68,5%

18 Member States have legislation in place 84,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 100.0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

7.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Disabled consumers find barriers in two dimensions of SSTs (including ATMs): on the one hand, the physical setting and surrounding of the machine and on the other, the design and usability of the interface. Senior consumers, disabled and other would benefit by an increase in the accessibility level of SSTs. They would be able to fully operate SSTs in a fast and independent way, enhancing their self-esteem and autonomy. Indeed, ATMs are linked to a key resource in every individual’s life – capital – and if they are inaccessible, an important segment of consumers can be excluded from financial services and an equal participation in the economic life . Such terminals can also reduce transaction and staffing costs, and increase customer service and satisfaction . For instance, providing accessible ATMs reduces the costs of banking operations supported by disabled persons that previously depended on assistance by a clerk.

In general, people with a disability and elderly are not seen as a relevant consumer group by the STT operators, and thus, their specific needs are often disregarded. However, since around 80 million people and a third of the population aged over 75 have some disability (and the number is set to increase given the ageing of the European society), the need for accessible STTs is already currently significant and it will be even more so in the near future.

7.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

7.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 28: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, SSTs)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering

trade in the area of selected Self-service terminals (SST) including ATMs can be

goods and services and in expected to be adopted in a range from 9 to 27 Member

the area of public States based on the current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of the built environment in relation

procurement to banks and due to the obligations for the MS under the

UNCRPD 8 . The mid-range scenario is 15 countries for

ATMs. For check-in machines and ticketing machines accessibility requirements can be expected to be adopted

0 0 in a range from 9 to 27 Member States, where the midrange

scenario is 18 countries.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the SSTs will be provided across-borders in 2020.It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and 0 0 new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade. Differences between legislation in the countries are likely to have a negative impact on the

public procurement industry.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 29: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, SSTs)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility

0 requirements concerning ATMs is likely to have a positive impact on the

level of accessibility of ATMs. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to have access to banking services provided through ATMs.

It is estimated that there is a cost difference between transactions based

8 Based on an examination of the current situation in nine Member States, technical accessibility legislation

has only been identified for a niche market in Italy. No problems in relation to cross-border trade

due to these technical accessibility requirements have been identified in the current situation.

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

on ATMs and those not using ATMS. These costs differences are assumed to be accrued by people with disabilities.

Similarly, benefits from using check-in machine or ticketing machines stem from the cost difference between tickets purchased at ticket offices and tickets purchased at ticketing machines that actually is saved by consumers with disabilities.

Elderly

While it can be expected that the take-up by elderly of ATMs and SSTs in the area of transport will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible SSTs are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers. However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility needs among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population the actual number of people that will likely benefit is still considerably high.

General population

The level of accessibility of SSTs is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts The level of accessibility of SSTs for is not likely to have any major

0 environmental impacts. Apart from ATMs based on the assumption that less paper-based processes will result from the increased use of ATMs for

banking transactions.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

7.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 30: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (SSTs)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the      

area of public procurement

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

Overall score 2.5 2 5 5 7 5

Average score 1.25 1 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.5

Table 31: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (SSTs)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 32: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (SSTs)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the It is assumed that: Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

selected goods and the accessibility of the good in • for ATMs a range of nine to all of those would be applicable in those 15 (in the case of combination with the mutual recognition countries (15), and

services and in the area terms of the characteristics ATMs) and 18 (in the case of ticketing and check-in principle, result in an elimination of costs for

of public procurement mentioned above namely user • machines) countries that are expected to have business that are due to variations between interfaces and functionality. for check-in and ticketing machines a range accessibility requirements in place by 2020. This national accessibility requirements.

of nine to all of those countries (18), would result in a reduction of those costs for

• However, at the same time, business in those 12

that are expected to adopt technical accessibility business that are due to variations between

requirements by 2020 as identified in the baseline national accessibility requirements. or 9 countries that are not expected to have scenario will follow the Recommendation. adopted accessibility requirements by 2020 would

This would mean that local businesses that are face additional costs for ensuring.

Costs related to diverging national accessibility active in countries where accessibility requirements requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. have not been adopted may face lower costs than

This would in turn lead to a level playing field for

companies that are based in countries where companies, which is expected to have a positive

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossaccessibility requirements are in place. This said, impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border the companies that do not provide accessible goods

trade has been fixed at 50%. The policy option is expected to have a positive may miss out on a larger consumer group (based on

impact on cross-border trade. the assumption that in the banking and transport sector accessible SSTs will be demanded).

It is expected that the cross-border trade could increase up to 60% (15 or 18 countries).

To increase competition Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be among industry in the in those countries that are covered by the common in those countries that are covered by the common expected in those countries that are covered by

area of selected goods accessibility requirements, i.e. nine to 15 or 18 accessibility requirements, i.e. 15 or 18 countries. the common accessibility requirements, across

and services and in the countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected Given that cross-border trade is expected to the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected

area of public to increase and the costs for understanding increase and the costs for understanding different to increase and the costs for understanding

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

procurement different requirements across Member States has requirements across Member States has been different requirements across Member States has

been removed, more companies may enter the removed, more companies may enter the market. been removed, more companies may enter the market. The extent to which new market entry can With 15 or 18 Member States, representing 75.1% market. be expected to spur competition is linked to or 84.1% of EU GDP, transposing this Directive it is

amount of countries that follow the expected that new market entry will increase Under this policy option the Internal Market for Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States competition due to lower costs and an effective SSTs is effectively based on common accessibility adopt the technical requirements proposed in the increase of the market. However, the impact is requirements and therefore not only is new Recommendation the more likely it is that new expected to be low given that the market for SSTs is market entry likely based on lower costs (as in market entrants compete on the internal market. dominated by a limited number of global policy option 3). However, the impact is expected However, the impact is expected to be low given companies. to be low given that the market for SSTs is that the market for SSTs is dominated by a limited dominated by a limited number of global number of global companies. companies and the market in particular for ATMs

is not likely to grow significantly.

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage where accessibility requirements are in place. described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

of the policy option) accessible likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options. Consumers that use SSTs cross-border in countries

SSTs in terms of the expected increased number of countries that would where accessibility requirements are in place would characteristics mentioned above have the same requirements in place. also benefit, although this number is estimated to

namely user interfaces and be relatively low.

functionality. The introduction of the relevant accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced transaction costs.

Elderly people travelling would also benefit.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. Improving accessibility of ATMs could lead to an environmental impact based on the conducting of transactions through ATMs electronically leading to a less

paper-based process. The level of accessibility of check-in and ticketing machines is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

8. eCommerce

8.1. Base figures

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Private sector websites market turnover in 251.464.000.000

2011

CAGR 0,0%

Private sector websites market turnover in 251.464.000.000

2020

Estimated share of ecommerce Websites 2,1%

One-off costs of accessibility (CAPEX): 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessibility 1.989

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs non-accessible 500

Number of goods/services

number of websites within Spain 74.699

number of websites within the EU 533.310

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10% trade

Share of businesses to which Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Lower range estimate 50%

Upper range estimate 50%

Current share of accessible websites

Lower bound 60%

Upper bound 60%

Problem assessment: Number of websites (2011 or latest figure):

Accessible websites

   Lower range estimate 22.484 Upper range estimate 22.484

Inaccessible websites

   Lower range estimate 14.865

   Upper range estimate 14.865

Baseline scenario: Number of websites (forecast 2020):

Accessible websites

   Lower range estimate 321.053

   Upper range estimate 321.053

Inaccessible websites

   Lower range estimate 212.257

   Upper range estimate 212.257

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 3

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 12

Extrapolation to EU level 27

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member State has legislation in place: Spain 8,5%

 In 2020

3 Member State has legislation in place 15,5%

12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5% understanding different accessibility requirements across borders

8.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

From a consumer perspective, impacts of accessibility on eCommerce would be similar to those already developed in the Private website sub-section above.

8.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

8.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 33: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Online Retail)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering

trade in the area of selected eCommerce websites can be expected to be adopted in a

goods and services and in range from 3 to 27 Member States based on the current

the area of public availability of accessibility legislation and due to the obligations for the Member States under the UNCRPD The

procurement mid-range scenario is 12 countries.

The revised Section 508 in the US and the debate on the application of ADA to websites is likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation in

0 0 relation to websites. Nevertheless, some divergences can be expected, thus hampering cross-border trade. These

efforts will potentially be fostered also by currently ongoing standardisation work at the EU level.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the services provided by web professionals will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade. Differences between legislation in the

public procurement 0 0 countries are likely to have a negative impact on the industry. Despite that most countries are expected to

follow the revised Section 508 or the web accessibility guidelines from W3C, differences between national legislation can be expected as it has happened extensively in the case of public websites.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 34: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Online Retail)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning eCommerce websites is likely to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of online retail services. Disabled persons and elderly will be able to benefit of better choice and lower prices generally offered in eCommerce (as compared to traditional retail).

Elderly

While it can be expected that the absorption rate by elderly of ICT and Internet products will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be

0 at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits

that result from accessible eCommerce websites are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers. However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility needs among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population, the actual number of people that will likely benefit is still high.

General population

The level of accessibility of eCommerce websites is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts The level of accessibility of eCommerce websites is not likely to have any

major environmental impacts. While the overall consumption of Internet

0 and computers will have an impact on the use of electricity, the number of

hours spent on researching and buying goods and services online is likely to be limited on a yearly basis.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

8.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 35: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Online Retail)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  () ()    

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition

among industry in the area  () ()    

of selected goods and services and in the area of

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

public procurement

Overall score 7 7 8 8 10 4

Average score 3.5 3.5 4 4 5 2

Table 36: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Online Retail)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) 0  () 

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 37: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Online Retail)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the It is assumed that a range of three to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure / countries (12) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

selected goods and provide the following: accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in those 12 countries that are combination with the mutual recognition

services and in the area the baseline scenario will follow the expected to have accessibility requirements in principle, result in an elimination of costs for • Accessible eCommerce

of public procurement Recommendation. place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of business that are due to variations between websites those costs for business that are due to variations national accessibility requirements.

Costs related to diverging national accessibility

• Accessible information between national accessibility requirements. requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. However, at the same time, business in those 15

concerning the accessibility This would mean that local businesses that are countries that are not expected to have adopted of the online retail service This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements accessibility requirements by 2020 would face border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border have not been adopted may face lower costs than additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the trade has been fixed at 10%. companies that are based in countries where degree that they are not already doing so on a

accessibility requirements are in place. This said, voluntary basis). the companies that do not provide accessible goods

may miss out on a large consumer group. This would in turn lead to a level playing field for

companies, which is expected to have a positive It is expected that the cross-border trade could impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade. increase.

The policy option is expected to have a positive impact on cross-border trade.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

To increase competition Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in

among industry in the those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common

area of selected goods accessibility requirements, i.e. three to 12 accessibility requirements, i.e. 12 countries. Given accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given and services and in the countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected that cross-border trade is expected to increase and that cross-border trade is expected to increase

area of public to increase and the costs for understanding the costs for understanding different requirements and the costs for understanding different different requirements across Member States has across Member States has been removed, more requirements across Member States has been

procurement been removed, more companies may enter the companies may enter the market. With 12 Member removed, more companies may enter the market.

market. The extent to which new market entry can States, representing 85.3% of EU GDP, transposing Under this policy option the Internal Market for be expected to spur competition is linked to this Directive it is expected that new market entry accessible eCommerce websites is effectively amount of countries that follow the will increase competition due to lower costs and an based on common accessibility requirements and Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States effective increase of the market. therefore not only is new market entry likely adopt the technical requirements proposed in the based on lower costs (as in policy option 3) but Recommendation the more likely it is that new also due to a larger market overall internal market market entrants compete on the internal market. for accessible websites.

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be If it is assumed that no further countries will adopt The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage legislation due to the recommendation there will described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

of the policy option): be no additional benefit to different social groups likely to be larger than PO2 if the number of impacts is likely to be larger than both options. compared to the baseline scenario. If however, countries increases vis-à-vis the number of

• Accessible eCommerce countries other than those identified in the countries that take-up the recommendation.

websites baseline scenario would introduce new accessibility

• Accessible information requirements, then the level of accessibility would increase and consumers would benefit.

concerning the accessibility

of the online retail service For example, consumers that buy cross-border

from countries where accessibility requirements are in place would also benefit. In addition, the introduction of the relevant accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

prices online.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. Improving accessibility of eCommerce websites could lead to a considerable share of the population being able to use online retail services and is likely to

increase take-up of these online services provided. This may result in more lean processes, less paperwork and potentially less need for transport (e.g. from and to a shop). Overall, however, the relevant environmental impact is difficult to determine and should be judged on a case by case basis. For example, for

online retail websites the impact of less transport from and to a shop may be (more than) offset by the transport for delivery of goods ordered online.

9. Banking Services

9.1. Base figures

Banking services: Websites

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2011

CAGR 0.0%

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2020

Share of Banking services websites 0,027%

One-off costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 1.989

Number of businesses in the EU 6.825

Number of Spanish Businesses 64

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs of non-accessible websites 500

Share of Spanish Businesses to which Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Lower Estimate 90%

Upper Estimate 99%

Number of accessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 10

Upper range estimate 38

Number of inaccessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 19

Upper range estimate 53 Number of accessible websites in 2020

Lower range estimate 1.229

Upper range estimate 4.109

Number of inaccessible websites in 2020

Lower range estimate 2.716

Upper range estimate 5.597

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

EU level 3

Using additional data 12

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member States has legislation in place 8,5 %

 In 2020

3 Member States have legislation in place 15,5%

12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

Banking services: Built environment

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Average costs for architect services per working hour 70

Number of working days 2

Number of FTEs 1

Number of working hours 8

Share of facilities that need to be replaced / refurbished per year 5,0%

Number of facilities relevant for the case in the problem assessment 215221

Share of architect services that is assumed to be procured cross-border 40,0%

Total Architect Market Turnover in 2011 14.525.640.676

Market share at risk of fragmentation 15%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2011 2.178.846.101

CAGR 0%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2020 2.178.846.101

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 15

In 2011 11

EU level (extrapolation) 20

In 2020 (extrapolation) 11

EU level (extrapolation) 20

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

11 Member States have legislation in place 42,0%

20 Member States have legislation in place 73,9%

In 2020

11 Member States have legislation in place 15,5% 27 Member States have legislation in place 42%

Correction factor 100%

Share of Member States that is expected to apply the eventual EU 50% Recommendation

Number of Member States that is expected to have legislation in place 27

Share of total EU GDP 100%

Correction factor 100,0%

Banking services: ATMs 215221

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

SSTs value in 2011 146,741,450

Share of production value that can be attributed 65%

to ATMs

Market turnover in 2011 95.381.943

CAGR 0.0%

Market turnover in 2020 95.381.943

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

 Number of countries for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 5

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 5

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 10

Extrapolation to EU level 15

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

5 Member States have legislation in place 54.3%

 In 2020

5 Member States have legislation in place 54.3%

10 Member States have legislation in place 73.2%

15 Member States have legislation in place 75,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100.0%

Correction factor 100.0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

9.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

As regards of banking services, SSTs and website have become essential elements in the provision of the service for customers who want to gather personal financial information or banking services. Accessible banking services for individuals with disabilities require accessibility of SSTs, built environment and the online part of the services. Persons with disabilities, as other customers, want their banking and dealing with their financing in a trustful and confidential way. For example, lack of accessibility in ATMs and websites results in disabled person having to share secret pin numbers with others in order to perform their financial transactions. Improving accessibility of banking services will have direct impact on the independence, autonomy and dignity of persons with disabilities.

Similarly than for the hospitality services, accessibility of the banking built environment is a condition sine qua non for persons with disabilities to be able to use the services, that includes the entering and moving in the bank buildings as well as the place where the Automated Teller

Machines are situated.

9.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

9.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 38: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Banking Services)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border The built environment trade in the area of selected

goods and services and in Technical accessibility requirements are expected to be in

the area of public place in all 27 Member States in 2020. Problems due to varying accessibility requirements result in problems for

procurement architects providing services across borders. Based on

available data, it is estimated that 40% of architect services are taking place in a cross-border context. Problems due to variations between national requirements are expected in all of these cases. The differences in accessibility requirements are a challenge for architect service providers; according to anecdotal evidence gathered in the framework of the current study, many architect firms collaborate with local firms in the countries where they provide their services due to these problems, as well as other differences in building regulations. The costs for architects for understanding technical accessibility requirements have been estimated to be equal to 2 to 10 working days.

Websites

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering online banking websites can be expected to be adopted in a range from 3 to 27 Member States based on the current

0 0 availability of accessibility legislation and due to the

obligations for the Member States under the UNCRPD The mid-range scenario is 12 countries.

The revised Section 508 in the US and the debate on the application of ADA to websites is likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation in relation to websites. Nevertheless, some divergences can be expected, thus hampering cross-border trade. In the area of the built environment, it is likely that many Member States will implement, maintain or develop their technical accessibility requirements by 2020. These efforts will potentially be fostered by currently on-going standardisation work at the EU level.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the services provided by web professionals will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

ATMs

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering ATMs can be expected to be adopted in a range from 9 to

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

27 Member States based on the current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of the built environment in relation to banks and due to the

obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD 9 . The mid-range

scenario is 15 countries.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the ATMs will be provided across-borders in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition Built environment among industry in the area

of selected goods and The expected variations between national technical accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

services and in the area of new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crosspublic procurement border trade.

Websites

The expected variations between national technical accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossborder trade. Differences between legislation in the

0 0 countries are likely to have a negative impact on the industry. Despite that most countries are expected to

follow the revised Section 508 or the accessibility guidelines of W3C, differences between national legislation can be expected as it has been the case for public websites.

ATMs

The expected variations between national technical accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossborder trade. Differences between legislation in the countries are likely to have a negative impact on the industry.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 39: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Banking Services)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

9

 Based on an examination of the current situation in nine Member States, technical accessibility legislation has

only been identified for a niche market in Italy. No problems in relation to cross-border trade due to

these technical accessibility requirements have been identified in the current situation.

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

a) Built environment

As noted above, all Member States are expected to have technical accessibility requirements in place in relation to the built environment of bank facilities in 2020. Technical accessibility requirements generally apply to new built environment and major refurbishments. Disabled persons are likely to be able to benefit from progressive improvements in this area by 2020.

b) Websites

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning private sector websites is likely to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of online banking services. Disabled persons and elderly will be able to benefit of better choice and lower prices generally offered in online banking (as compared to traditional retail banking).

c) ATMs

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning ATMs is likely to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of ATMs. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to have access to banking services provided through ATMs.

It is estimated that there is a cost difference between transactions based on ATMs and those not using ATMS. These costs differences are assumed

0 to be accrued by people with disabilities.

Elderly

a) Built environment

For the built environment, similar impacts as for disabled people are expected.

b) Websites

While it can be expected that the absorption rate by elderly of ICT and Internet products will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible private are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers. However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility needs among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population, the actual number of people that will likely benefit is still considerably high.

c) ATMs

While it can be expected that the take-up by elderly of ATMs will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible ATMs are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers. However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility needs among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population the actual

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

number of people that will likely benefit is still considerably high.

General population

a) Built environment

The accessibility of the built environment has impacts in particular on families with small children as well as bank clients with temporary functional limitations. Problems and needs of these groups of people in relation to the built environment are likely to be similar to those of disabled persons, depending on their functional limitations.

b) Websites

The level of accessibility of websites is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons, except that websites designed to be accessible are easily and better adapted to their use in mobile devices what seems to be the trend among the general population.

c) ATMs

The level of accessibility of ATMs is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts Built environment

The level of accessibility of the built environment of banking facilities for is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

Websites

The level of accessibility of online banking websites is not likely to have any

0 major environmental impacts. While the overall consumption of Internet

and computers will have an impact on the use of electricity, the number of hours spent on online banking services online is likely to be limited on a yearly basis.

ATMs

The level of accessibility of ATMs for is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

9.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 40: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Banking Services)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border

trade in the area of  ()     

selected goods and

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the  ()     

area of public procurement

Overall score 3 2 6 6 8 4

Average score 1.5 1 3 3 4 2

Table 41: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Banking Services)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  () 

Environmental impacts 0 0  ()

Table 42: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Banking Services)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the Built environment Built environment Built environment trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure /

selected goods and provide the following: It is assumed that all countries are expected to Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements adopt technical accessibility requirements by 2020 requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

services and in the area • Accessible built environment as identified in the baseline scenario will follow the would be applicable in the 11 countries (i.e. the combination with the mutual recognition

of public procurement of banking facilities; Recommendation. entire EU) that are expected to have accessibility principle, result in an elimination of costs for

requirements in place by 2020. This would result in business that are due to variations between

• Accessible websites for Costs related to diverging national accessibility a reduction of those costs for business that are due national accessibility requirements.

online banking; requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. to variations between national accessibility

• requirements.

However, at the same time, business in those 16

Accessible Automated Teller This may in turn have a positive impact on crosscountries that are not expected to have adopted Machines; and border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border Websites accessibility requirements by 2020 would face trade has been fixed at 40%. additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the

• Accessible information Under this policy option common accessibility degree that they are not already doing so on a

concerning the accessibility Websites requirements and the mutual recognition principle voluntary basis).

of banking services.

It is assumed that three of the countries (12) that would be applicable in those 12 countries that are are expected to adopt technical accessibility expected to have accessibility requirements in This would in turn lead to a level playing field for requirements by 2020 as identified in the baseline place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of companies, which is expected to have a positive scenario will follow the Recommendation. those costs for business that are due to variations impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

between national accessibility requirements.

Costs related to diverging national accessibility Websites requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. This would mean that local businesses that are

active in countries where accessibility requirements Under this policy option common requirements

This may in turn have a positive impact on crosshave not been adopted may face lower costs than would have EU wide coverage. This would, in border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border companies that are based in countries where combination with the mutual recognition trade has been fixed at 10%. accessibility requirements are in place. This said, principle, result in an elimination of costs for

the companies that do not provide accessible goods business that are due to variations between

ATMs may miss out on a large consumer group. national accessibility requirements.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

It is assumed that for ATMs a range of nine to all of It is expected that the cross-border trade could However, at the same time, business in those 15 those countries (15) that are expected to adopt increase. countries that are not expected to have adopted technical accessibility requirements by 2020 as accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

identified in the baseline scenario will follow the ATMs additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the

Recommendation. Under this policy option common accessibility degree that they are not already doing so on a

voluntary basis).

Costs related to diverging national accessibility requirements and the mutual recognition principle requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. would be applicable in those 15 countries that are This would in turn lead to a level playing field for expected to have accessibility requirements in companies, which is expected to have a positive This may in turn have a positive impact on crossplace by 2020. This would result in a reduction of impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border those costs for business that are due to variations trade has been fixed at 50%. between national accessibility requirements. The policy option is expected to have a positive impact on cross-border trade. This would mean that local businesses that are active in countries where accessibility requirements ATMs have not been adopted may face lower costs than

companies that are based in countries where Under this policy option common requirements accessibility requirements are in place. This said, would have EU wide coverage. This would, in the companies that do not provide accessible goods combination with the mutual recognition may miss out on a larger consumer group (based on principle, result in an elimination of costs for the assumption that in the banking and transport business that are due to variations between sector accessible ATMs will be demanded). national accessibility requirements.

It is expected that the cross-border trade could However, at the same time, business in those

countries that are not expected to have adopted

increase. accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the degree that they are not already doing so on a voluntary basis).

This would in turn lead to a level playing field for companies, which is expected to have a positive

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

The policy option is expected to have a positive impact on cross-border trade.

To increase competition Built environment Built environment Built environment

among industry in the The impact on new market entrants is likely to be The impact on new market entrants is likely to be See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the area of selected goods limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade policy options would have the same coverage).

and services and in the may, however, in turn have a positive impact on may, however, spur competition in this sector, as area of public competition in this sector. one of the barriers to cross-border provision of Websites

procurement services would be removed.

Websites Positive impacts on competition are expected in

Websites those countries that are covered by the common

Positive impacts on competition are expected in accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given those countries that are covered by the common Positive impacts on competition are expected in that cross-border trade is expected to increase accessibility requirements, i.e. three to 12 those countries that are covered by the common and the costs for understanding different countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected accessibility requirements, i.e. 12 countries. Given requirements across Member States has been to increase and the costs for understanding that cross-border trade is expected to increase and removed, more companies may enter the market. different requirements across Member States has the costs for understanding different requirements Under this policy option the Internal Market for been removed, more companies may enter the across Member States has been removed, more accessible websites is effectively based on market. The extent to which new market entry can companies may enter the market. With 12 Member common accessibility requirements and therefore be expected to spur competition is linked to States transposing this Directive it is expected that not only is new market entry likely based on lower amount of countries that follow the new market entry will increase competition due to costs (as in policy option 3) but also due to a Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States lower costs and an effective increase of the market. larger market overall internal market for adopt the technical requirements proposed in the accessible websites.

Recommendation the more likely it is that new ATMs

market entrants compete on the internal market. ATMs Positive impacts on competition could be expected

ATMs in those countries that are covered by the common Positive impacts on competition could be

accessibility requirements, i.e. 15 countries. Given expected in those countries that are covered by Positive impacts on competition could be expected that cross-border trade is expected to increase and the common accessibility requirements, across in those countries that are covered by the common the costs for understanding different requirements the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

accessibility requirements, i.e. nine to 15 countries. across Member States has been removed, more to increase and the costs for understanding Given that cross-border trade is expected to companies may enter the market. With 15 Member different requirements across Member States has increase and the costs for understanding different States transposing this Directive it is expected that been removed, more companies may enter the requirements across Member States has been new market entry will increase competition due to market. removed, more companies may enter the market. lower costs and an effective increase of the market.

The extent to which new market entry can be However, the impact is expected to be low given Under this policy option the Internal Market for expected to spur competition is linked to amount of that the market for ATMs is dominated by a limited ATMs is effectively based on common accessibility countries that follow the Recommendation, i.e. the number of global companies. requirements and therefore not only is new more Member States adopt the technical market entry likely based on lower costs (as in requirements proposed in the Recommendation policy option 3). However, the impact is expected the more likely it is that new market entrants to be low given that the market for SSTs is compete on the internal market. However, the dominated by a limited number of global impact is expected to be low given that the market companies and the market in particular for ATMs for ATMs is dominated by a limited number of is not likely to grow significantly.

global companies.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be Built environment Built environment Built environment on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage

of the policy option): See the baseline scenario. See the baseline scenario. See the baseline scenario.

• Accessible built environment Websites Websites Websites

of banking facilities; If it is assumed that no further countries will adopt The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

• Accessible websites for legislation due to the recommendation there will described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

online banking; be no additional benefit to different social groups likely to be larger than PO2 if the number of impacts is likely to be larger than both options.

compared to the baseline scenario. If however, countries increases vis-à-vis the number of

• Accessible Automated Teller countries other than those identified in the countries that take-up the recommendation. ATMs

Machines; and baseline scenario would introduce new accessibility

requirements, then the level of accessibility would ATMs

The types of impacts will be similar to those

• Accessible information described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the increase and consumers would benefit.

concerning the accessibility The types of impacts will be similar to those impacts is likely to be larger than both options. of banking services. For example, consumers that access their banks described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is

cross-border from countries where accessibility likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the requirements are in place would also benefit. In expected increased number of countries that would addition, the introduction of the relevant have the same requirements in place.

accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced prices online.

ATMs

The benefits would be limited to those countries where accessibility requirements are in place.

Consumers that use ATMs cross-border in countries where accessibility requirements are in place would also benefit, although this number is estimated to

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

be relatively low.

The introduction of the relevant accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced transaction costs.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. Built environment

None of the policy options is likely to leave a major environmental footprint.

Websites

Improving accessibility of websites could lead to a considerable share of the population being able to use online banking services websites and is likely to increase take-up of these online services provided. This may result in more lean processes, less paperwork and potentially less need for transport (e.g. from and to a bank). Overall, however, the relevant environmental impact is difficult to determine and should be judged on a case by case basis. Online banking can lead to more paperless processes would result from increased use of online banking and less transport to and from the bank is needed.

ATMs

Improving accessibility of ATMs could lead to an environmental impact based on the conducting of transactions through ATMs electronically leading to a less paper-based process. The level of accessibility of check-in and ticketing machines is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

10. Transport – Air

10.1. Base figures

Air transport services: Built environment

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total Architect Market Turnover in 2011 14.525.640.676

Market share at risk of fragmentation 15%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2011 2.178.846.101

CAGR 0%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2020 2.178.846.101

Average costs for architect services per working hour 70

Number of working days 2

Number of FTEs 1

Number of working hours/day 8

Share of facilities that need to be replaced / refurbished per year 5,0%

Number of facilities relevant for the case in the problem assessment 482

Share of architect services that is assumed to be procured cross-border 40,0%

Number of Member States that is expected to have legislation in place 27

Share of total EU GDP 100%

Share of Member States that is expected to apply the eventual EU 50% Recommendation

 Correction factor 100,0%

Air transport services: Check-in machines

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total production value of “Point-of-sale 146.741.450

terminals, ATMs and similar machines capable of

being connected to a data processing machine or network" PRODCOM code 26201200

Share of production value that can be attributed 5%

to ATMs

Share of production value that can be attributed 100%

to the Air transport sector

Market turnover in 2011 7.337.073

CAGR 0.0%

Market turnover in 2020 7.337.073

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 6

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 6

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 9

Extrapolation to EU level 18

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

 In 2020

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

9 Member States have legislation in place 68,5% 18 Member States have legislation in place 84,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 100.0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

Air transport services: Websites

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2011

CAGR 0.0%

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2020

Share of Air transport services websites 0,003%

One-off costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 1.989

Number of businesses in EU 872

Number of Spanish Businesses 71

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs of non-accessible websites 500

Share of Spanish Businesses to which Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Lower Estimate 95%

Upper Estimate 100%

Number of accessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 12

Upper range estimate 43 Number of inaccessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 28

Upper range estimate 59

Number of accessible websites in 2020

Lower range estimate 157

Upper range estimate 525

Number of inaccessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 347

Upper range estimate 715

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

EU level 3

Using additional data 12

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member States has legislation in place 8,5 %

 In 2020

3 Member States have legislation in place 15,5%

12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5.0%

understanding different accessibility requirements across borders

10.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Considering that one main barrier that people with disabilities and elderly people experience is the ability to move outside of their homes, the potential benefit of accessible transport has a direct impact on the possibility for their participation in society and be included in common activities that all citizens do. To enjoy the use of transport services the various elements of the transport chain need to be accessible, namely booking the travel, buying tickets and circulating in the transport infrastructures. Websites including online information and online booking is increasing and are essential sometimes for example; even to be able to access the service given the lack of person managed stations in some cases. Indeed, consumers with disabilities currently face challenges when planning travels and purchasing tickets online or through automatic vending machines. In addition challenges also relate to problems such as, for example, schedules not provided in an accessible format or difficulties to enter stations. Accessible websites will enhance the possibility to travel but also have access to more competitive prices. Just like the Internet and smart mobile communication devices, SSTs have become an essential interface for customers who want to gather information on specific transport services, buy and validate tickets or check-in to their journey, SSTs in the area of air transportation typically include self-service check-in terminals at airports.

10.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

10.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 43: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Air Transport)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border The built environment trade in the area of selected

goods and services and in Technical accessibility requirements are expected to be in

the area of public place in all the 27 Member States in 2020. Problems due to varying accessibility requirements result in problems for

procurement architects providing services across borders. Based on

available data, it is estimated that 40% of architect

0 0 services are taking place in a cross-border context.

Problems due to variations between national requirements are expected in all of these cases. The differences in accessibility requirements are a challenge for architect service providers; according to anecdotal evidence gathered in the framework of the current study, many architect firms collaborate with local firms in the countries where they provide their services due to these

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

problems, as well as other differences in building regulations. The costs for architects for understanding technical accessibility requirements have been estimated to be equal to 2 to 10 working days.

Websites

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering websites can be expected to be adopted in a range from 3 to 27 Member States based on the current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of copyrights and due to the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD. The midrange scenario is 12 countries. The revised Section 508 in the US and the recent obligations for accessible websites under the Air Carriers Access Act is likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation in relation to websites. Nevertheless, some divergences can be expected, thus hampering cross-border trade.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the services provided by web professionals will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

SSTs

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering check-in machines can be expected to be adopted in a range from 9 to 27 Member States based on the current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of the built environment and due to the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD and inspired in eth recent obligations in the US under the Air Carriers Access Act. The mid-range scenario is 18 countries.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the SSTs will be provided across-borders in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade.

public procurement

0 0 It is not expected that there will be any major new market entrants in the built environment sector by 2020 due to

the maturity of the market and the market structure. Similarly, for the SSTs sector which is dominated by global companies and not projected to grow significantly.

As concerns the situation in the websites sector, differences between legislation in the 12 countries that

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

are expected to have legislation in place are likely to have a negative impact on the industry. Despite that most countries are expected to follow the revised Section 508, differences between national legislation can be expected as it was the case in relation with public websites, thus impeding competition.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 44: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Air Transport)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

Airports have some degree of accessibility and assistance is provided to disabled persons in need. An increase on accessibility is expected to decrease the level of assistance required by disabled persons.

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning websites is likely to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of the websites. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to book air tickets online. It is assumed that the price of air tickets may be on average between 5 and 10% cheaper than booking directly with the airline or via a travel agency. Hence, greater accessibility of websites will result in cost reductions for disabled persons. As concerns the potential impact on the absorption of air travel by disabled consumers, there may be a small positive impact due to increased travel if tickets can be bought at a better price.

The benefits from using check-in machine stem from the cost related to time savings and reduced personnel.

0 Elderly

Airports generally have some degree of accessibility le and assistance is provided to disabled persons in need. An increase on accessibility is expected to decrease the level of assistance required by disabled persons.

While it can be expected that the absorption rate by elderly of ICT and Internet products will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible websites in relation to air services are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers. Accessible checking machines will be easy to use by elderly travellers.

General population

The level of accessibility of websites is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons except that they would be easily used on mobile devices.

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Environmental impacts The level of accessibility of airports is not expected to have any major

environmental impacts.

The same is relevant for websites; the level of accessibility of websites for booking air services online is not likely to have any major environmental impacts. While the overall consumption of Internet and computers will

0 have an impact on the use of electricity, the number of hours spent on

researching and booking air travel online is likely to be limited on a yearly basis. Environmental impacts due to a change in the absorption rates of air travel are also expected to be minor.

The level of accessibility of check-in machines for is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

10.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 45: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Air Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(Assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the      

area of public procurement

Overall score 2.5 2 3 3 6 5

Average score 1.25 1 1.5 1.5 3 2.5

Table 46: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Air Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  () 

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 47: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Air Transport)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the Built environment Built environment Built environment trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure /

selected goods and provide the following: It is assumed that a range of half to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility

See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the countries (27) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle policy options would have the same coverage).

services and in the area • Accessible information accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in the 27 countries (i.e. the

of public procurement concerning the accessibility the baseline scenario will follow the entire EU) that are expected to have accessibility Websites

of the service Recommendation. requirements in place by 2020. This would result in Under this policy option common requirements

a reduction of those costs for business that are due

• Accessible websites for Costs related to diverging national accessibility would have EU wide coverage. This would, in to variations between national accessibility

booking air travel requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. combination with the mutual recognition requirements.

principle, result in an elimination of costs for

• Accessible check in machines This may in turn have a positive impact on cross It is expected that the cross-border trade could business that are due to variations between

border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border increase. national accessibility requirements.

In addition, common technical trade has been fixed at 40%.

requirements for the built Websites However, at the same time, business in those 15

environment would be adopted Websites countries that are not expected to have adopted

Under this policy option common accessibility accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

It is assumed that a range of three to all of those requirements and the mutual recognition principle additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the countries (12) that are expected to adopt technical would be applicable in those 12 countries that are degree that they are not already doing so on a accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in expected to have accessibility requirements in voluntary basis). the baseline scenario will follow the place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of Recommendation. those costs for business that are due to variations This would in turn lead to a level playing field for

Costs related to diverging national accessibility between national accessibility requirements.

companies, which is expected to have a positive impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. This would mean that local businesses that are

The policy option is expected to have a positive

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border have not been adopted may face lower costs than

impact on cross-border trade.

trade has been fixed at 10%. companies that are based in countries where SSTs

accessibility requirements are in place. This said,

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

SSTs the companies that do not provide accessible goods For check-in machines business in those 9

may miss out on a large consumer group. countries that are not expected to have adopted

It is assumed that for check-in machines a range of accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

nine to all of those countries (18) that are expected It is expected that the cross-border trade could additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the to adopt technical accessibility requirements by increase. degree that they are not already doing so on a

2020 as identified in the baseline scenario will SSTs voluntary basis).

follow the Recommendation.

For check-in machines business in and 18 countries This would in turn lead to a level playing field for

Costs related to diverging national accessibility that are expected to have accessibility companies, which is expected to have a positive requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. requirements in place by 2020 would result in a impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossreduction of those costs for business that are due The policy option is expected to have a positive border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border to variations between national accessibility impact on cross-border trade.

trade has been fixed at 50%. requirements.

This would mean that local businesses that are active in countries where accessibility requirements have not been adopted may face lower costs than companies that are based in countries where accessibility requirements are in place. This said, the companies that do not provide accessible goods may miss out on a larger consumer group (based on the assumption that in the air transport sector accessible SSTs will be demanded).

It is expected that the cross-border trade could increase up.

To increase competition Built environment Built environment Built environment

among industry in the The impact on new market entrants is likely to be The impact on new market entrants is likely to be See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the

area of selected goods limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade limited but yet positive. The positive impact on

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

and services and in the may, however, in turn have a positive impact on cross-border trade may, however, spur competition policy options would have the same coverage).

area of public competition in this sector. in this sector, as one of the barriers to cross-border Websites procurement provision of services would be removed. Websites

Websites Positive impacts on competition are expected in

Positive impacts on competition are expected in those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common Positive impacts on competition are expected in accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given accessibility requirements, i.e. three to 12 those countries that are covered by the common that cross-border trade is expected to increase countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected accessibility requirements, i.e. 12 countries. Given and the costs for understanding different to increase and the costs for understanding that cross-border trade is expected to increase and requirements across Member States has been different requirements across Member States has the costs for understanding different requirements removed, more companies may enter the market. been removed, more companies may enter the across Member States has been removed, more Under this policy option the Internal Market for market. The extent to which new market entry can companies may enter the market. With 12 Member accessible websites is effectively based on be expected to spur competition is linked to States, representing 85.3% of EU GDP, transposing common accessibility requirements and therefore amount of countries that follow the this Directive it is expected that new market entry not only is new market entry likely based on lower Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States will increase competition due to lower costs and an costs (as in policy option 3) but also due to a adopt the technical requirements proposed in the effective increase of the market. larger market overall internal market for Recommendation the more likely it is that new accessible websites.

market entrants compete on the internal market. SSTs

SSTs

SSTs Positive impacts on competition could be expected

in those countries that are covered by the common Positive impacts on competition could be Positive impacts on competition could be expected accessibility requirements, i.e. 18 countries. Given expected in those countries that are covered by in those countries that are covered by the common that cross-border trade is expected to increase and the common accessibility requirements, across accessibility requirements, i.e. nine to 18 countries. the costs for understanding different requirements the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected Given that cross-border trade is expected to across Member States has been removed, more to increase and the costs for understanding increase and the costs for understanding different companies may enter the market. With 18 Member different requirements across Member States has requirements across Member States has been States, representing 84.1% of EU GDP, transposing been removed, more companies may enter the removed, more companies may enter the market. this Directive it is expected that new market entry market.

The extent to which new market entry can be will increase competition due to lower costs and an

expected to spur competition is linked to amount of effective increase of the market. However, the Under this policy option the Internal Market for countries that follow the Recommendation, i.e. the impact is expected to be limited given that the SSTs is effectively based on common accessibility

requirements and therefore not only is new

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

more Member States adopt the technical market for SSTs is dominated by a small number of market entry likely based on lower costs (as in requirements proposed in the Recommendation global companies. policy option 3). However, the impact is expected the more likely it is that new market entrants to be low given that the market for SSTs is compete on the internal market. However, the dominated by a limited number of global impact is expected to be low given that the market companies and the market is not likely to grow for SSTs is dominated by a limited number of global significantly. companies.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be Built environment Built environment Built environment on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage

of the policy option) accessible: In view of that assistance is already provided to See PO2 See PO2

persons in need, impacts are related to increase of

• Information concerning the independence and comfort by person with Websites and SSTs Websites

accessibility of the service; disabilities. The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

• Websites for booking air Websites described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

travel; likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options.

The benefits would be limited to those countries expected increased number of countries that would

• Accessible check in machines where accessibility requirements are in place. have the same requirements in place. SSTs

• Accessible airports Consumers that buy cross-border from countries The types of impacts will be similar to those

where accessibility requirements are in place would described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the also benefit. impacts is likely to be larger than both options.

If requirements would not be introduced in any further countries, then the situation is expected to remain the same as in the baseline scenario.

The introduction of the any new accessibility requirements in further countries will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced prices online.

SSTs

The benefits would be limited to those countries where accessibility requirements are in place.

Consumers that use SSTs cross-border in countries where accessibility requirements are in place would

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

also benefit.

The introduction of relevant accessibility requirements in any further countries will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from easy check in procedures in an independent manner.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. None of the policy options is likely to leave a major environmental footprint. Action in this area is not expected to have a major impact on the take up of air

transport or of Internet / computer uptake and use or check-in machines.

11. Transport – Rail

11.1. Base figures

Rail transport services: Websites

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2011

CAGR 0.0%

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2020

Share of Rail transport services websites 0.002%

One-off costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 1.989

Number of businesses in EU 536

Number of Spanish Businesses 32

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs of non-accessible websites 500

Share of Spanish Businesses to which Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Lower Estimate 90%

Upper Estimate 95%

Number of accessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 5

Upper range estimate 18

Number of inaccessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 1

Upper range estimate 25 Number of accessible websites in 2020

Lower range estimate 96

Upper range estimate 323

Number of inaccessible websites in 2020

Lower range estimate 213

Upper range estimate 440

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

EU level 3

Using additional data 12

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member States has legislation in place 8,5 %

 In 2020

3 Member States have legislation in place 15,5%

12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

Rail transport services: Ticketing machines

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total production value of “Point-of-sale 146.741.450

terminals, ATMs and similar machines capable of

being connected to a data processing machine

or network" PRODCOM code 26201200

Share of production value that can be attributed 30%

to ATMs

Share of production value that can be attributed 45%

to the Rail transport sector

Market turnover in 2011 19.810.096

CAGR 0.0%

Market turnover in 2020 19.810.096

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 6

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 6

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 9

Extrapolation to EU level 18

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

 In 2020

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

9 Member States have legislation in place 68,5%

18 Member States have legislation in place 84,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 100.0%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

11.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Considering that one main barrier that people with disabilities and elderly people experience is the ability to move outside of their homes, the potential benefit of

accessible transport has a direct impact on the possibility for their participation in society and be included in common activities that all citizens do. To enjoy the use of transport services the various elements of the transport chain need to be accessible, namely booking the travel, buying tickets and circulating in the transport infrastructures. Websites including online information and online booking is increasing and are essential sometimes for example; even to be able to access the service given the lack of person managed stations in some cases. Indeed, consumers with disabilities currently face challenges when planning travels and purchasing tickets online or through automatic vending machines. In addition challenges also relate to problems such as, for example, schedules not provided in an accessible format or difficulties to enter stations. Accessible websites will enhance the possibility to travel but also have access to more competitive prices. Just like the Internet and smart mobile communication devices, SSTs have become an essential interface for customers who want to gather information on specific transport services, buy and validate tickets or check-in to their journey, SSTs in the area of rail transportation typically include self-service check-in terminals at rail stations.

11.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

11.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 48: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Rail Transport)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Websites trade in the area of selected

goods and services and in Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering

the area of public websites can be expected to be adopted in a range from 3 to 27 Member States based on the current availability of

procurement accessibility legislation in the field of copyrights and due to

the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD. The midrange scenario is 12 countries. The revised Section 508 in the US and the discussion on the applicability of ADA to websites is likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation in relation to websites. Nevertheless, some divergences can be expected, thus hampering cross-border trade as it is the case in public websites.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the services provided by web professionals will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences

0 0 between national technical accessibility requirements has

a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

SSTs

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering ticketing machines can be expected to be adopted in a range from 9 to 27 Member States based on current availability of accessibility legislation referring to SST and due to the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD. The mid-range scenario is 18 countries.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the SSTs will be provided across-borders in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the Internal Market.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade. public procurement 0 0 As concerns the situation in the websites sector,

differences between legislation in the 12 countries that are expected to have legislation in place are likely to have a negative impact on the industry. Despite that most countries are expected to follow the revised Section 508 standards or the guidelines from W3C, differences between national legislation can be expected as it was the

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

case in public websites, thus impeding competition.

Concerning ticketing machines the legislation 18 countries would have a negative impact on the industry, however, the market is highly concentrated and not much new market entry is expected.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 49: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Rail Transport)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning websites is likely to have a positive impact on their level of accessibility. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to book rail ticket online and consult time tables. It is assumed that the price of rail tickets may be on average between 5 and 10% cheaper than booking directly with the rail service provider or via a travel agency. Hence, greater accessibility of websites will result in cost reductions for disabled persons. As concerns the potential impact on the absorption of rail travel by disabled consumers, there may be a small positive impact due to increased travel if tickets can be bought at a better price.

The benefits from using ticketing machines stem from the cost difference between tickets purchased at ticket offices and tickets purchased at ticketing machines that actually is saved by consumers with disabilities.

Elderly

0 While it can be expected that the absorption rate by elderly of ICT and

Internet products will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits

that result from accessible websites in relation to rail services are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers.

However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population the actual number of people that will likely benefit is still considerably high This also holds for the use of ticketing machines.

General population

The level of accessibility of websites is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons except for the easily access in mobile devices.

The level of accessibility of SSTs is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts 0 The level of accessibility of websites for booking rail services online is not

likely to have any major environmental impacts. While the overall

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

consumption of Internet and computers will have an impact on the use of electricity, the number of hours spent on researching and booking rail travel online is likely to be limited on a yearly basis. Environmental impacts due to a change in the absorption rates of rail travel are also expected to be minor. A small positive impact could result in those cases disabled persons choose to travel by train instead of individually.

The level of accessibility of SSTs for is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

11.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 50: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Rail Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the      

area of public procurement

Overall score 2.5 2 3 3 6 5

Average score 1.25 1 1.5 1.5 3 2.5

Table 51: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Rail Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  () 

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 52: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Rail Transport)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the Websites Websites Websites trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure /

selected goods and provide the following: It is assumed that a range of three to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements countries (12) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

services and in the area • Accessible information accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in those 12 countries that are combination with the mutual recognition

of public procurement concerning the accessibility the baseline scenario will follow the expected to have accessibility requirements in principle, result in an elimination of costs for

of the service Recommendation. place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of business that are due to variations between those costs for business that are due to variations national accessibility requirements.

• Accessible websites for Costs related to diverging national accessibility between national accessibility requirements.

booking rail travel requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. However, at the same time, business in those 15 This would mean that local businesses that are countries that are not expected to have adopted

• Accessible ticketing This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

machines border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border have not been adopted may face lower costs than additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the

trade has been fixed at 10%. companies that are based in countries where degree that they are not already doing so on a

SSTs accessibility requirements are in place. This said, voluntary basis).

the companies that do not provide accessible goods

It is assumed that a range of nine to all of those may miss out on a large consumer group. This would in turn lead to a level playing field for countries (18) that are expected to adopt technical companies, which is expected to have a positive accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in It is expected that the cross-border trade could impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

the baseline scenario will follow the increase. The policy option is expected to have a positive

Recommendation. SSTs impact on cross-border trade of 20%.

Costs related to diverging national accessibility Under this policy option common accessibility SSTs requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. requirements and the mutual recognition principle

This may in turn have a positive impact on crosswould be applicable in those 18 countries that are

Under this policy option common requirements would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border expected to have accessibility requirements in trade has been fixed at 50%. place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of

combination with the mutual recognition

those costs for business that are due to variations principle, result in an elimination of costs for

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

between national accessibility requirements. business that are due to variations between national accessibility requirements.

This would mean that local businesses that are active in countries where accessibility requirements However, at the same time, business in those 9 have not been adopted may face lower costs than countries that are not expected to have adopted companies that are based in countries where accessibility requirements by 2020 would face accessibility requirements are in place. This said, additional costs for ensuring accessibility. the companies that do not provide accessible goods

may miss out on a larger consumer group (based on This would in turn lead to a level playing field for the assumption that in the rail transport sector companies, which is expected to have a positive accessible SSTs will be demanded). impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

It is expected that the cross-border trade could The policy option is expected to have a positive increase. impact on cross-border trade.

To increase competition Websites Websites Websites among industry in the

area of selected goods Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common

and services and in the accessibility requirements, i.e. three to 12 accessibility requirements, i.e. 12 countries. Given accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given

area of public countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected that cross-border trade is expected to increase and that cross-border trade is expected to increase

procurement to increase and the costs for understanding the costs for understanding different requirements and the costs for understanding different

different requirements across Member States has across Member States has been removed, more requirements across Member States has been been removed, more companies may enter the companies may enter the market. With 12 Member removed, more companies may enter the market. market. The extent to which new market entry can States, representing 15.5% of EU GDP, transposing Under this policy option the Internal Market for be expected to spur competition is linked to this Directive it is expected that new market entry accessible websites is effectively based on amount of countries that follow the will increase competition due to lower costs and an common accessibility requirements and therefore Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States effective increase of the market. not only is new market entry likely based on lower adopt the technical requirements proposed in the costs (as in policy option 3) but also due to a

Recommendation the more likely it is that new SSTs larger market overall internal market for

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

market entrants compete on the internal market. Positive impacts on competition could be expected accessible websites. SSTs in those countries that are covered by the common SSTs

accessibility requirements, i.e. 18 countries. Given Positive impacts on competition could be expected that cross-border trade is expected to increase and Positive impacts on competition could be in those countries that are covered by the common the costs for understanding different requirements expected in all countries that are now covered by accessibility requirements, i.e. nine to 18 countries. across Member States has been removed, more the common accessibility requirements, across Given that cross-border trade is expected to companies may enter the market. With 18 Member the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected increase and the costs for understanding different States, representing 84.1% of EU GDP, transposing to increase and the costs for understanding requirements across Member States has been this Directive it is expected that new market entry different requirements across Member States has removed, more companies may enter the market. will increase competition due to lower costs and an been removed, more companies may enter the The extent to which new market entry can be effective increase of the market. However, the market. expected to spur competition is linked to amount of impact is expected to be limited given that the

countries that follow the Recommendation, i.e. the market for SSTs is dominated by a few large Under this policy option the Internal Market for more Member States adopt the technical players. SSTs is effectively based on common accessibility requirements proposed in the Recommendation requirements and therefore not only is new the more likely it is that new market entrants market entry likely based on lower costs (as in compete on the internal market. However, the policy option 3). However, the impact is expected impact is expected to be limited given that the to be limited given that the market for SSTs is market for SSTs is dominated by a small number of dominated by a small number of global global companies. companies and the market is not likely to grow

significantly.

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be Websites Websites and SSTs Websites and SSTs on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage

of the policy option) accessible: The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

where accessibility requirements are in place. described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the • Information concerning the likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options.

accessibility of the service; Consumers that buy cross-border from countries expected increased number of countries that would

where accessibility requirements are in place would have the same requirements in place.

• Websites for booking rail also benefit.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

travel; If requirements would not be introduced in any

• Accessible ticketing further countries than at present, the situation

machines would remain the same as in the baseline scenario.

To the degree that new accessibility requirements would be introduced in further countries, a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced prices online.

SSTs

The benefits would be limited to those countries where accessibility requirements are in place.

Consumers that use SSTs cross-border in countries where accessibility requirements are in place would also benefit.

Similar to what is the case for websites, the introduction of relevant accessibility requirements in any further countries will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced transaction costs.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. None of the policy options is likely to leave a major environmental footprint. Action in this area is not expected to have a major impact on the take up of rail

services or of Internet / computer uptake and use.

12. Transport - Bus

12.1. Base figures

Bus transport services: Websites

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2011

CAGR 0.0%

Private sector websites market turnover in 251,464,000,000

2020

Share of Bus transport services websites 0.3%

One-off costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessible websites (WCAG 2.0) 1.989

Number of businesses in the EU 65.000

Number of Spanish Businesses 7.475

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs of non-accessible websites 500

Share of Spanish Businesses to which Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Lower Estimate 1%

Upper Estimate 10%

Number of accessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 13

Upper range estimate 450

Number of inaccessible websites in 2011

Lower range estimate 1

Upper range estimate 734 Number of accessible websites in 2020

Lower range estimate 11.700

Upper range estimate 39.130

Number of inaccessible websites in 2020

Lower range estimate 25.870

Upper range estimate 53.300

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

EU level 3

Using additional data 12

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member States has legislation in place 8,5 %

 In 2020

3 Member States have legislation in place 15,5%

12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

Bus transport services: Built environment

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total Architect Market Turnover in 2011 14.525.640.676

Market share at risk of fragmentation 15%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2011 2.178.846.101

CAGR 0%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2020 2.178.846.101

Average costs for architect services per working hour 70

Number of working days 2

Number of FTEs 1

Number of working hours/day 8

Share of facilities that need to be replaced / refurbished per year 5,0%

Number of facilities relevant for the case in the problem assessment 82500

Share of architect services that is assumed to be procured cross-border 40,0%

Number of Member States that is expected to have legislation in place 27

Share of total EU GDP 100%

Share of Member States that is expected to apply the eventual EU 50% Recommendation

 Correction factor 100,0%

Bus transport services: Ticketing machines

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total production value of “Point-of-sale 146.741.450

terminals, ATMs and similar machines capable of

being connected to a data processing machine

or network" PRODCOM code 26201200

Share of production value that can be attributed 30%

to Ticketing Machines Share of production value that can be attributed 45%

to the Bus transport sector

Market turnover in 2011 19.810.096

CAGR 0.0%

Market turnover in 2020 19.810.096

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 50%

trade

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 6

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 6

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 9

Extrapolation to EU level 18

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

 In 2020

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

9 Member States have legislation in place 68,5%

18 Member States have legislation in place 84,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 100.0% Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 1.0%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

12.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Considering that one main barrier that people with disabilities and elderly people experience is the ability to move outside of their homes, the potential benefit of accessible transport has a direct impact on the possibility for their participation in society and be included in common activities that all citizens do. To enjoy the use of transport services the various elements of the transport chain need to be accessible, namely booking the travel, buying tickets and circulating in the transport infrastructures.

Websites including online information and online booking is increasing and are essential sometimes for example; even to be able to access the service given the lack of person managed stations in some cases. Indeed, consumers with disabilities currently face challenges when planning travels and purchasing tickets online or through automatic vending machines. In addition challenges also relate to problems such as, for example, schedules not provided in an accessible format or difficulties to enter stations. Accessible websites will enhance the possibility to travel but also have access to more competitive prices. Just like the Internet and smart mobile communication devices, SSTs have become an essential interface for customers who want to gather information on specific transport services, buy and validate tickets or check-in to their journey, SSTs in the area of bus transportation typically include self-service check-in terminals at bus stations.

12.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

12.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 53: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Bus Transport)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border The built environment trade in the area of selected

goods and services and in Technical accessibility requirements are expected to be in

the area of public place in all the 27 Member States in 2020. Problems due to varying accessibility requirements result in problems for procurement 0 0 architects providing services across borders. Based on

available data, it is estimated that 40% of architect services are taking place in a cross-border context. Problems due to variations between national requirements are expected in all of these cases. The

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

differences in accessibility requirements are a challenge for architect service providers. The costs for architects for understanding technical accessibility requirements have been estimated to be equal to 2 to 10 working days.

Websites

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering websites can be expected to be adopted in a range from 3 to 27 Member States based on the current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of copyrights and due to the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD. The midrange scenario is 12 countries. The revised Section 508 in the US and the discussion of coverage of web sites under ADA is likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation in relation to websites. Nevertheless, some divergences can be expected as it is the case for public web sites, thus hampering cross-border trade.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the services provided by web professionals will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

SSTs

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering ticketing machines can be expected to be adopted in a range from 9 to 27 Member States current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of the built environment and due to the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD. The mid-range scenario is 18 countries.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the SSTs will be provided across-borders in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the Internal Market.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade.

public procurement It is not expected that there will be major new market

0 0 entrants in the built environment sector by 2020 due to

the maturity of the market and the market structure.

As concerns the situation in the websites sector, differences between legislation in the 12 countries that are expected to have legislation in place are likely to have a negative impact on the industry. Despite that most countries are expected to follow the revised Section 508,

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

or the guidelines of W3C differences between national legislation can be expected, thus impeding competition.

Concerning ticketing machines the legislation 18 countries

would have a negative impact on the industry, however,

the market is highly concentrated.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 54: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Bus Transport)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

As noted above, all Member States are expected to have technical accessibility requirements in place in relation to the built environment in the field of bus transport in 2020. Technical accessibility requirements generally apply to new built environment and major refurbishments. Disabled persons are likely to be able to benefit from progressive improvements in this area by 2020 and be more able to use bus transport.

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning websites is likely to have a positive impact on their level of accessibility. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to book bus tickets online. It is assumed that the price of bus tickets may be on average between 5 and 10% cheaper than booking directly with the bus company or via a travel agency. Hence, greater accessibility of websites will result in cost reductions for disabled persons. As concerns the potential impact on the absorption of bus travel by disabled consumers, there may be a small positive impact due to increased travel if tickets can be bought at a better price.

0 The benefits from using ticketing machines stem from the cost difference

between tickets purchased at ticket offices and tickets purchased at ticketing machines that actually is saved by consumers with disabilities.

Elderly

For the built environment, similar impacts as for disabled people are expected.

While it can be expected that the absorption rate by elderly of ICT and Internet products will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible websites in relation to bus services are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers.

However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population the actual number of people that will likely benefit is still considerably high This also holds for the use of ticketing machines.

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

General population

The accessibility of the built environment has impacts in particular on families with small children as well as tourists with temporary functional limitations. Problems and needs of these groups of people in relation to the built environment are likely to be similar to those of disabled persons, depending on their functional limitations.

The level of accessibility of websites is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons except from their easy use on mobile devices.

The level of accessibility of SSTs is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts The level of accessibility of bus stations can have an environmental impact

in terms of replacement of individual travel with public transport (positive impact) or increased travel by disabled people (minor negative environmental impact).

The level of accessibility of websites for booking bus services online is not likely to have any major environmental impacts. While the overall

0 consumption of Internet and computers will have an impact on the use of

electricity, the number of hours spent on researching and booking bus travel online is likely to be limited on a yearly basis. Environmental impacts due to a change in the absorption rates of bus travel are also expected to be minor.

The level of accessibility of SSTs for is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

12.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 55: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Bus Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the

area of selected goods      

and services and in the area of public

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

procurement

Overall score 2.5 1 3 3 6 5

Average score 1.25 1 1.5 1.5 3 2.5

Table 56: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Bus Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  () 

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 57: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Bus Transport)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the Built environment Built environment Built environment trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure /

selected goods and provide the following: It is assumed that a range of half to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility

See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the countries (27) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle policy options would have the same coverage).

services and in the area • Accessible information accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in the 27 countries (i.e. the of public procurement concerning the accessibility the baseline scenario will follow the entire EU) that are expected to have accessibility Websites

of the service Recommendation. requirements in place by 2020. This would result in Under this policy option common requirements

a reduction of those costs for business that are due

• Accessible websites for Costs related to diverging national accessibility would have EU wide coverage. This would, in to variations between national accessibility

booking bus travel requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. combination with the mutual recognition requirements.

principle, result in an elimination of costs for

• Accessible ticketing This may in turn have a positive impact on cross It is expected that the cross-border trade could business that are due to variations between

machines border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border increase. national accessibility requirements.

trade has been fixed at 40%.

In addition, common technical Websites However, at the same time, business in those 15

requirements for the built Websites countries that are not expected to have adopted environment would be adopted Under this policy option common accessibility accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

It is assumed that a range of three to all of those requirements and the mutual recognition principle additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the countries (12) that are expected to adopt technical would be applicable in those 12 countries that are degree that they are not already doing so on a accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in expected to have accessibility requirements in voluntary basis). the baseline scenario will follow the place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of Recommendation. those costs for business that are due to variations This would in turn lead to a level playing field for

Costs related to diverging national accessibility between national accessibility requirements.

companies, which is expected to have a positive impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. This would mean that local businesses that are

The policy option is expected to have a positive

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border have not been adopted may face lower costs than

impact on cross-border trade.

trade has been fixed at 10%. companies that are based in countries where SSTs

accessibility requirements are in place.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

SSTs It is expected that the cross-border trade could Under this policy option common requirements increase. would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

It is assumed that a range of nine to all of those combination with the mutual recognition countries (18) that are expected to adopt technical SSTs principle, result in an elimination of costs for

accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in

the baseline scenario will follow the Under this policy option common accessibility

business that are due to variations between national accessibility requirements.

Recommendation. requirements and the mutual recognition principle

would be applicable in those 18 countries that are However, at the same time, business in those 18

Costs related to diverging national accessibility expected to have accessibility requirements in or 9 countries that are not expected to have

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of adopted accessibility requirements by 2020 would

those costs for business that are due to variations face additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to

between national accessibility requirements. the degree that they are not already doing so on a

This may in turn have a positive impact on cross This would mean that local businesses that are voluntary basis).

border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border active in countries where accessibility requirements

trade has been fixed at 50%. This would in turn lead to a level playing field for have not been adopted may face lower costs than

companies, which is expected to have a positive

companies that are based in countries where impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

accessibility requirements are in place. The policy option is expected to have a positive

It is expected that the cross-border trade could impact on cross-border trade.

increase.

To increase competition Built environment Built environment Built environment

among industry in the The impact on new market entrants is likely to be The impact on new market entrants is likely to be See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the area of selected goods limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade policy options would have the same coverage).

and services and in the may, however, in turn have a positive impact on may, however, spur competition in this sector, as area of public competition in this sector. one of the barriers to cross-border provision of Websites

procurement services would be removed.

Websites Positive impacts on competition are expected in

Websites those countries that are covered by the common

Positive impacts on competition are expected in accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given those countries that are covered by the common Positive impacts on competition are expected in that cross-border trade is expected to increase

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

accessibility requirements, i.e. three to 12 those countries that are covered by the common and the costs for understanding different countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected accessibility requirements, i.e. 12 countries. Given requirements across Member States has been to increase and the costs for understanding that cross-border trade is expected to increase and removed, more companies may enter the market. different requirements across Member States has the costs for understanding different requirements Under this policy option the Internal Market for been removed, more companies may enter the across Member States has been removed, more accessible websites is effectively based on market. The extent to which new market entry can companies may enter the market. With 12 Member common accessibility requirements and therefore be expected to spur competition is linked to States, representing 85.3% of EU GDP, transposing not only is new market entry likely based on lower amount of countries that follow the this Directive it is expected that new market entry costs (as in policy option 3) but also due to a Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States will increase competition due to lower costs and an larger market overall internal market for adopt the technical requirements proposed in the effective increase of the market. accessible websites. Recommendation the more likely it is that new

market entrants compete on the internal market. SSTs SSTs

SSTs Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be

in those countries that are covered by the common expected in those countries that are covered by Positive impacts on competition could be expected accessibility requirements, i.e. 18 countries. Given the common accessibility requirements, across in those countries that are covered by the common that cross-border trade is expected to increase and the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected accessibility requirements, i.e. nine to 18 countries. the costs for understanding different requirements to increase and the costs for understanding

Given that cross-border trade is expected to across Member States has been removed, more different requirements across Member States has increase and the costs for understanding different companies may enter the market. With 18 Member been removed, more companies may enter the requirements across Member States has been States, representing 84.1% of EU GDP, transposing market. removed, more companies may enter the market. this Directive it is expected that new market entry

The extent to which new market entry can be will increase competition due to lower costs and an Under this policy option the Internal Market for expected to spur competition is linked to amount of effective increase of the market. However, the SSTs is effectively based on common accessibility countries that follow the Recommendation, i.e. the impact is expected to be limited given that the requirements and therefore not only is new more Member States adopt the technical market for SSTs is dominated by a few large market entry likely based on lower costs (as in requirements proposed in the Recommendation players. policy option 3). However, the impact is expected the more likely it is that new market entrants to be limited given that the market for SSTs is compete on the internal market. However, the dominated by a small number of global impact is expected to be low given that the market companies and the market is not likely to grow for SSTs is dominated by a limited number of global significantly until 2020.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

companies.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be Built environment Built environment Built environment on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage

of the policy option) accessible: See the baseline scenario. See the baseline scenario. See the baseline scenario.

• Information concerning the Websites Websites and SSTs Websites and SSTs

accessibility of the service; The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

• Websites for booking bus where accessibility requirements are in place. described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

travel; likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options. If no further countries would adopt accessibility

expected increased number of countries that would

• Accessible ticketing requirements, the situation would remain the same have the same requirements in place.

machines as in the baseline scenario.

• Accessible bus stations In case further countries would introduce

accessibility requirements than in the current situation, the introduction of the relevant accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced prices online as well as easier to access information on the accessibility of the service. Consumers that buy cross-border from countries where accessibility requirements are in place would also benefit.

SSTs

The benefits would be limited to those countries where accessibility requirements are in place (see websites above).

The potential introduction of relevant accessibility

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

requirements in further countries would lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced transaction costs and being able to travel more independent. Consumers that use SSTs cross-border in countries where accessibility requirements are in place would also benefit, although this number is estimated to be relatively low.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. None of the policy options is likely to leave a major environmental footprint. Action in this area is not expected to have a major impact on the take up of bus

transport or of Internet / computer uptake and use.

13. Transport – Maritime

13.1. Base figures

13.1.1. Websites

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Private sector websites market turnover in 251.464.000.000

2011

CAGR 0,0%

Private sector websites market turnover in 251.464.000.000

2020

Share of Maritime transport services websites 0.01%

One-off costs of accessible websites 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessible websites 1.989

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs non-accessible 500

Number of goods/services

Number of websites within Spain 218

Number of websites in the EU 2.498

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10%

trade

Share of Spanish businesses to which Spanish accessibility legislation applies

Lower range estimate 5%

Upper range estimate 25%

Problem assessment: Number of websites (2011 or latest figure):

Accessible websites

Lower range estimate 2

Upper range estimate 33

Inaccessible websites

Lower range estimate 185

Upper range estimate 216

Baseline scenario: Number of websites (forecast 2020):

Accessible websites

Lower range estimate 450

Upper range estimate 1.504

Inaccessible websites

 Lower range estimate 994

 Upper range estimate 2.048

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 3

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 12

Extrapolation to EU level 27

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member State has legislation in place: Spain 8,5%

 In 2020

3 Member State has legislation in place 15,5% 12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5%

understanding different accessibility

requirements across borders

13.1.2. Built environment

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total Architect Market Turnover in 2011 14.525.640.676

Market share at risk of fragmentation 15%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2011 2.178.846.101

CAGR 0%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2020 2.178.846.101

Average costs for architect services per working hour 70

Number of working days 2

Number of FTEs 1

Number of working hours/day 8

Share of facilities that need to be replaced / refurbished per year 5,0%

Number of facilities relevant for the case in the problem assessment 338

Share of architect services that is assumed to be procured cross-border 40,0%

Number of Member States that is expected to have legislation in place 27

Share of total EU GDP 100%

Share of Member States that is expected to apply the eventual EU 50% Recommendation

 Correction factor 100,0%

13.1.3. Ticketing machines

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total production value of “Point-of-sale terminals, ATMs and similar machines 146.741.450

capable of being connected to a data processing machine or network"

PRODCOM code 26201200

Share that can be attributed to SSTs 30%

SSTs value in 2011 44.022.435

Share of production value that can be attributed to ATMs 10%

Market turnover in 2011 4.402.244

CAGR 0.0%

Market turnover in 2020 4.402.244

Share of development costs 5%

Share of accessibility costs 1%

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border trade 50%

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

 In 2011 6

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 6

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 9

Extrapolation to EU level 18

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

6 Member States have legislation in place 66,7%

 In 2020

6 Member States have legislation in place 62,8%

9 Member States have legislation in place 68,5%

18 Member States have legislation in place 84,1%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 1%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to understanding different 100 %

accessibility requirements across borders

13.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Considering that one main barrier that people with disabilities and elderly people experience is the ability to move outside of their homes, the potential benefit of accessible transport has a direct impact on the possibility for their participation in society and be included in common activities that all citizens do. To enjoy the use of transport services the various elements of the transport chain need to be accessible, namely booking the travel, buying tickets and circulating in the transport infrastructures. Websites including online information and online booking is increasing and are essential sometimes for example; even to be able to access the service given the lack of person managed stations in some cases. Indeed, consumers with disabilities currently face challenges when planning travels and purchasing tickets online or through automatic vending machines. In addition challenges also relate to problems such as, for example, schedules not provided in an accessible format or difficulties to enter stations. Accessible websites will enhance the possibility to travel but also have access to more competitive prices. Just like the Internet and smart mobile communication devices, SSTs have become an essential interface for customers who want to gather information on specific transport services, buy and validate tickets or check-in to their journey, SSTs in the area of maritime transportation typically include self-service check-in terminals.

13.3. Assessment of the impacts per Policy option

13.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 58: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Maritime Transport)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border The built environment trade in the area of selected

goods and services and in Technical accessibility requirements are expected to be in

the area of public place in all the 27 Member States in 2020. Problems due to varying accessibility requirements result in problems for

procurement architects providing services across borders. Based on

available data, it is estimated that 40% of architect services are taking place in a cross-border context. Problems due to variations between national requirements are expected in all of these cases. The differences in accessibility requirements are a challenge for architect service providers. The costs for architects for understanding technical accessibility requirements have been estimated to be equal to 2 to 10 working days.

Websites

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering websites can be expected to be adopted in a range from 3 to 27 Member States based on the current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of copyrights and due to the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD. The mid

0 0 range scenario is 12 countries. The revised Section 508 in the US and the discussion on the coverage of websites

under ADA is likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation in relation to websites. Nevertheless, some divergences can be expected, thus hampering cross-border trade.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the services provided by web professionals will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

SSTs

Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering ticketing machines can be expected to be adopted in a range from 9 to 27 Member States current availability of accessibility legislation in the field of the built environment in relation to the maritime sector and due to

the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD 10 . The midrange

scenario is 18 countries.

10 Based on an examination of the current situation in nine Member States, technical accessibility

legislation has only been identified for a niche market in Italy. No problems in relation to cross

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 50% of the SSTs will be provided across-borders in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on crossborder trade and that the full potential of the Internal Market.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade. public procurement It is not expected that there will be any major new market

entrants in the built environment sector by 2020 due to the maturity of the market and the market structure.

As concerns the situation in the websites sector,

0 0 differences between legislation in the 12 countries that

are expected to have legislation in place are likely to have a negative impact on the industry. Despite that most countries are expected to follow the revised Section 508 or the guidelines of W3C, differences between national legislation can be expected, thus impeding competition.

With regard to ticketing machines the legislation 18 countries would have a negative impact on the industry, however, the market is highly concentrated and not much new market entry is expected.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 59: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Maritime Transport)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

As noted above, all Member States are expected to have technical accessibility requirements in place in relation to the built environment in the field of maritime transport in 2020. Technical accessibility requirements generally apply to new built environment and major refurbishments.

0 Disabled persons are likely to be able to benefit from progressive

improvements in this area by 2020.

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning websites is likely to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of the websites. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to book boat tickets online. It is assumed that the price of boat tickets may be on average between 5 and 10% cheaper than

border trade due to these technical accessibility requirements have been identified in the current

situation.

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

booking directly with the company or via a travel agency. Hence, greater accessibility of websites will result in cost reductions for disabled persons. As concerns the potential impact on the absorption of boat travel by disabled consumers, there may be a small positive impact due to increased travel if tickets can be bought at a better price.

The benefits from using ticketing machines stem from the cost difference between tickets purchased at ticket offices and tickets purchased at ticketing machines that actually is saved by consumers with disabilities.

Elderly

For the built environment, similar impacts as for disabled people are expected.

While it can be expected that the absorption rate by elderly of ICT and Internet products will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible websites in relation to boat services are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers.

However, keeping in mind that the prevalence of accessibility among the elderly population is considerably higher than that of the rest of the population the actual number of people that will likely benefit is still considerably high. This also holds for the use of ticketing machines.

General population

The accessibility of the built environment has impacts in particular on families with small children as well as tourists with temporary functional limitations. Problems and needs of these groups of people in relation to the built environment are likely to be similar to those of disabled persons, depending on their functional limitations.

The level of accessibility of websites is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons except their easy use in mobile devices.

Environmental impacts The level of accessibility of maritime ports is not expected to have any

environmental impacts.

The same is relevant for websites; the level of accessibility of websites for booking boat services online is not likely to have any major environmental

0 impacts. While the overall consumption of Internet and computers will have an impact on the use of electricity, the number of hours spent on

researching and booking boat travel online is likely to be limited on a yearly basis.

The level of accessibility of SSTs for is not likely to have any major environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

13.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 60: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Maritime Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()     

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the      

area of public procurement

Overall score 2.5 2 3 3 6 5

Average score 1.25 1 1.5 1.5 3 2.5

Table 61: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Maritime Transport)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  () 

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 62: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Maritime Transport)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the Built environment Built environment Built environment trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure /

selected goods and provide the following: It is assumed that a range of half to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility

See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the countries (27) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle policy options would have the same coverage).

services and in the area • Accessible information accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in the 27 countries (i.e. the

of public procurement concerning the accessibility the baseline scenario will follow the entire EU) that are expected to have accessibility Websites

of the service Recommendation. requirements in place by 2020. This would result in Under this policy option common requirements

a reduction of those costs for business that are due

• Accessible websites for Costs related to diverging national accessibility would have EU wide coverage. This would, in to variations between national accessibility

booking boat travel requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. combination with the mutual recognition requirements.

principle, result in an elimination of costs for

• Accessible ticketing This may in turn have a positive impact on cross It is expected that the cross-border trade could business that are due to variations between

machines border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border increase up. national accessibility requirements.

trade has been fixed at 40%.

In addition, common technical Websites However, at the same time, business in those 15

requirements for the built Websites countries that are not expected to have adopted environment would be adopted Under this policy option common accessibility accessibility requirements by 2020 would face

It is assumed that a range of three to all of those requirements and the mutual recognition principle additional costs for ensuring accessibility. countries (12) that are expected to adopt technical would be applicable in those 12 countries that are accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in expected to have accessibility requirements in This would in turn lead to a level playing field for the baseline scenario will follow the place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of companies, which is expected to have a positive Recommendation. those costs for business that are due to variations impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

Costs related to diverging national accessibility between national accessibility requirements. The policy option is expected to have a positive

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. This would mean that local businesses that are impact on cross-border trade.

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements SSTs border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border have not been adopted may face lower costs than trade has been fixed at 10%. companies that are based in countries where Under this policy option common requirements

accessibility requirements are in place. This said, would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

SSTs the companies that do not provide accessible goods combination with the mutual recognition

may miss out on a large consumer group. principle, result in an elimination of costs for It is assumed that a range of nine to all of those business that are due to variations between

countries (18) that are expected to adopt technical It is expected that the cross-border trade could national accessibility requirements. accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in increase up to 15% (12 countries).

the baseline scenario will follow the However, at the same time, business in those 15 SSTs

Recommendation. or 9 countries that are not expected to have

Under this policy option common accessibility adopted accessibility requirements by 2020 would

Costs related to diverging national accessibility requirements and the mutual recognition principle face additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. would be applicable in those 18 countries that are the degree that they are not already doing so on a

voluntary basis).

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossexpected to have accessibility requirements in border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of This would in turn lead to a level playing field for trade has been fixed at 50%. those costs for business that are due to variations companies, which is expected to have a positive

between national accessibility requirements. impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

This would mean that local businesses that are The policy option is expected to have a positive active in countries where accessibility requirements impact on cross-border trade.

have not been adopted may face lower costs than companies that are based in countries where accessibility requirements are in place. This said, the companies that do not provide accessible goods may miss out on a larger consumer group (based on the assumption that in the maritime transport sector accessible SSTs will be demanded).

It is expected that the cross-border trade could increase up.

To increase competition Built environment Built environment Built environment

among industry in the The impact on new market entrants is likely to be The impact on new market entrants is likely to be See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

area of selected goods limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade policy options would have the same coverage).

and services and in the may, however, in turn have a positive impact on may, however, spur competition in this sector, as Websites

area of public competition in this sector. one of the barriers to cross-border provision of

procurement services would be removed. Websites Positive impacts on competition are expected in

Websites those countries that are covered by the common

Positive impacts on competition are expected in accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given those countries that are covered by the common Positive impacts on competition are expected in that cross-border trade is expected to increase accessibility requirements, i.e. three to 12 those countries that are covered by the common and the costs for understanding different countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected accessibility requirements, i.e. 12 countries. Given requirements across Member States has been to increase and the costs for understanding that cross-border trade is expected to increase and removed, more companies may enter the market. different requirements across Member States has the costs for understanding different requirements Under this policy option the Internal Market for been removed, more companies may enter the across Member States has been removed, more accessible websites is effectively based on market. The extent to which new market entry can companies may enter the market. With 12 Member common accessibility requirements and therefore be expected to spur competition is linked to States, representing x% of EU GDP, transposing this not only is new market entry likely based on lower amount of countries that follow the Directive it is expected that new market entry will costs (as in policy option 3) but also due to a Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States increase competition due to lower costs and an larger market overall internal market for adopt the technical requirements proposed in the effective increase of the market. accessible websites. Recommendation the more likely it is that new

market entrants compete on the internal market. SSTs SSTs

SSTs Positive impacts on competition could be expected Positive impacts on competition could be

in those countries that are covered by the common expected in those countries that are covered by Positive impacts on competition could be expected accessibility requirements, i.e. 18 countries. Given the common accessibility requirements, across in those countries that are covered by the common that cross-border trade is expected to increase and the EU. Given that cross-border trade is expected accessibility requirements, i.e. nine to 18 countries. the costs for understanding different requirements to increase and the costs for understanding

Given that cross-border trade is expected to across Member States has been removed, more different requirements across Member States has increase and the costs for understanding different companies may enter the market. With 18 Member been removed, more companies may enter the requirements across Member States has been States, representing 84.1% of EU GDP, transposing market. removed, more companies may enter the market. this Directive it is expected that new market entry

The extent to which new market entry can be will increase competition due to lower costs and an Under this policy option the Internal Market for expected to spur competition is linked to amount of effective increase of the market. However, the SSTs is effectively based on common accessibility

requirements and therefore not only is new

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

countries that follow the Recommendation, i.e. the impact is expected to be low given that the market market entry likely based on lower costs (as in more Member States adopt the technical for SSTs is dominated by a few large players. policy option 3). However, the impact is expected requirements proposed in the Recommendation to be low given that the market for SSTs is the more likely it is that new market entrants dominated by a limited number of global compete on the internal market. However, the companies and the market is not likely to grow impact is expected to be limited given that the significantly. market for SSTs is dominated by a small number of global companies.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be Built environment Built environment Built environment on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage

of the policy option) accessible: See the baseline scenario. See the baseline scenario. See the baseline scenario.

• Information concerning the Websites Websites and SSTs Websites

accessibility of the service; The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

• Websites for booking boat where accessibility requirements are in place. described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the

travel; likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options. Consumers that buy cross-border from countries

expected increased number of countries that would

• Accessible ticketing where accessibility requirements are in place would have the same requirements in place. SSTs

machines also benefit.

• Accessible ports The introduction of the relevant accessibility

requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced prices online.

SSTs

The benefits would be limited to those countries where accessibility requirements are in place.

Consumers that use SSTs cross-border in countries where accessibility requirements are in place would also benefit, although this number is estimated to be relatively low.

Similar to what is the case for websites, the introduction of relevant accessibility requirements in any further countries will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

reduced transaction costs.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. None of the policy options is likely to leave a major environmental footprint. Action in this area is not expected to have a major impact on the take up of boat

transport or of Internet / computer uptake and use.

Hospitality Services

13.4. Base figures

13.4.1. Websites

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Market turnover in 2011 251.464.000.000

CAGR 0,0%

Market turnover in 2020 251.464.000.000

One-off costs of accessibility (CAPEX): 50.128

Ongoing costs of accessibility 1.989

One-off costs of non-accessible websites 33.317

Ongoing costs non-accessible 500

Number of goods/services

number of websites within Spain 21.000

number of websites within the EU 260.000

Share of turnover stemming from cross-border 10% trade

Share of Spanish businesses to which accessibility legislation applies

Lower range estimate 50%

Upper range estimate 50%

Problem assessment: Number of websites (2011 or latest figure):

Accessible websites

   Lower range estimate 1.890

   Upper range estimate 6.321

Inaccessible websites

   Lower range estimate 4.179 Upper range estimate 8.610

Baseline scenario: Number of websites (forecast 2020):

Accessible websites

   Lower range estimate 46.800

   Upper range estimate 156.520

Inaccessible websites

   Lower range estimate 103.480

   Upper range estimate 213.200

Number of countries in the sample for which legislation could be identified

Sample size 9

In 2011 1

In 2020 (extrapolation)

As identified in country sample 3

Only baseline scenario: see legislative analysis 12

Extrapolation to EU level 27

Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member State has legislation in place: Spain 8,5%

 In 2020

3 Member State has legislation in place 15,5%

12 Member States have legislation in place 85,3%

27 Member States have legislation in place 100,0%

Correction factor 30%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to 5% understanding different accessibility requirements across borders

13.4.2. Built environment

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Total Architect Market Turnover in 2011 14.525.640.676

Market share at risk of fragmentation 15%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2011 2.178.846.101

CAGR 0%

Total industry turnover at risk of fragmentation in 2020 2.178.846.101

Average costs for architect services per working hour 70

Number of working days 2

Number of FTEs 1

Number of working hours/day 8

Share of facilities that need to be replaced / refurbished per year 5,0%

Number of facilities relevant for the case in the problem assessment 279910

Share of architect services that is assumed to be procured cross-border 40,0%

Number of Member States that is expected to have legislation in place 27

Share of total EU GDP 100%

Share of Member States that is expected to apply the eventual EU 50% Recommendation

 Correction factor 100,0%

13.5. Effects of the problem on consumers

Challenges currently encountered by disabled consumers relate e.g. to the insufficient availability of (comparable) information concerning the accessibility of hospitality services, as well as problems in relation to the actual accessibility of the built environment and websites where hospitality services can be booked. Indeed, any disabled traveller, either from an EU Member State or from overseas, who wishes to travel to an (other) EU faces to the lack of similar or coordinated access standards across

Europe. The choice of suitable holiday destinations is limited firstly by the difficulty of obtaining reliable information about accessibility, prior to travel, and subsequently by the highly variable quality of transport, venues and services, in terms of their accessibility.

For instance, many accessibility certification schemes and labels are only based on selfassessments

by the hospitality service providers without any third party testing 11 and are

based on different criteria. As a consequence, consumers often have no assurance that labelled hospitality facilities are actually accessible. Moreover some providers of hospitality services have wrongly labelled their facilities – generally because of a lack of technical skills to perform a correct conformity assessment. As a result, disabled customers relying on such accessibility labels run a risk of unintended booking nonaccessible services which could potentially even endangering their security.

Lastly, many accessibility certification schemes and labels focus only on accessibility aspects of the built environment and do not include accessibility of services. Yet, disabled consumers often require accessibility of both the physical facilities and the

related services 12 .

13.6. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

13.6.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 63: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Hospitality Services)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering

trade in the area of selected websites can be expected to be adopted by 12 Member

goods and services and in States based on the current availability of accessibility

the area of public legislation in the field of copyrights and due to the obligations for the MS under the UNCRPD. In the built

procurement environment, technical accessibility requirements are

expected to be adopted in all the 27 Member States.

The revised Section 508 in the US is likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation in

0 0 relation to websites as well as the on-going debate of the

applicability of ADA to websites. Nevertheless, some divergences can be expected, thus hampering crossborder trade. In the area of the built environment, it is likely that many Member States will implement, maintain or develop their technical accessibility requirements for hospitality services and facilities by 2020. These efforts will potentially be fostered by currently on-going standardisation work at the EU level.

As to the magnitude of the impacts of the varying accessibility requirements, it is assumed that 10% of the

11 e.g. the German DEHOGA accessibility scheme.

12 BMWi (2008), p. 34., http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/economic-impulses-of-accessible

href="http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/economic-impulses-of-accessible-tourism-for-all-526,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf">tourism-for-all-526,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

services provided by web professionals will take place cross-border in 2020. It is expected that the differences between national technical accessibility requirements has a negative impact on cross-border trade and that the full potential of the internal market would not be achieved.

Turning to the built environment sector, problems due to varying accessibility requirements result in problems for architects providing services across borders. Based on available data, it is estimated that 40% of architect services are taking place in a cross-border context. Problems due to variations between national requirements are expected in all of these cases. The differences in accessibility requirements are a challenge for architect service providers; according to anecdotal evidence gathered in the framework of the current study, many architect firms collaborate with local firms in the countries where they provide their services due to these problems, as well as other differences in building regulations. The costs for architects for understanding technical accessibility requirements have been estimated to be equal to 2 to 10 working days. Overall, the costs have been estimated to be between 4.5 EURm and 62.7 EURm for the architect industry. The costs associated with efforts made in order to understand accessibility legislation in place and to adapt the services accordingly is estimated to be between approx. 0.01% and 0.17% of the turnover in this sector in 2020.

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade. It is not expected that there will be any

public procurement major new market entrants in the built environment sector by 2020 due to the maturity of the market and the

0 0 market structure. As concerns the situation in the

websites sector, differences between legislation in the countries are likely to have a negative impact on the industry. Despite that most countries are expected to follow the revised Section 508, differences between national legislation can be expected as it has been the case in relation to public websites.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Table 64: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Hospitality Services)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

0 The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning websites is likely to have a positive impact on

their level of accessibility. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to book accommodation online. It is assumed that the price of accommodation may be on average between 5 and 10% cheaper than

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

booking directly with the hospitality service provider or via a travel agency.

It can be noted that building regulations that impose accessibility requirements generally refer to new buildings and major refurbishments. Therefore, older buildings may not be accessible. Furthermore, the current varying certification and information concerning the actual accessibility of facilities creates problems for consumers, since the certification schemes vary between the Member States.

Elderly

While it can be expected that the absorption rate by elderly of ICT and Internet products will increase by 2020, it is still expected that it will not be at the same level as younger consumers. Hence, while the types of benefits that result from accessible websites in relation to hospitality services are likely to be similar to those of disabled people, it is expected that the anticipated increase in the level of accessibility will benefit elderly slightly less than disabled consumers.

Problems and needs for elderly in relation to the accessibility of hospitality facilities are likely to be similar to those of disabled persons, depending on their functional limitations.

General population

The level of accessibility of websites is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons except from their easiness to be used in mobile devices. The accessibility of the built environment has impacts in particular on families with small children as well as tourists with temporary functional limitations. Problems and needs of these groups of people in relation to the built environment are likely to be similar to those of disabled persons, depending on their functional limitations.

Environmental impacts The level of accessibility of websites for booking hospitality services online

is not likely to have any major environmental impacts. While the overall consumption of Internet and computers will have an impact on the use of

0 electricity, the number of hours spent on researching and booking hospitality services online is likely to be limited on a yearly basis.

The level of accessibility of the built environment is expected limited environmental impacts.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

13.6.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessments

Table 65: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Hospitality Services)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of

selected goods and  ()  ()    

services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the  ()  ()    

area of public procurement

Overall score 7 7 8 8 10 4

Average score 3.5 3.5 4 4 5 2

Table 66: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Hospitality Services)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups) ()  () 

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 67: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Hospitality Services)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the Websites Websites Websites trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure /

selected goods and provide the following: It is assumed that a range of three to all of those Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements countries (12) that are expected to adopt technical requirements and the mutual recognition principle would have EU wide coverage. This would, in

services and in the area • Accessible websites accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in would be applicable in those 12 countries that are combination with the mutual recognition

of public procurement the baseline scenario will follow the expected to have accessibility requirements in principle, result in an elimination of costs for

• Accessible hospitality Recommendation. place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of business that are due to variations between

facilities those costs for business that are due to variations national accessibility requirements.

Costs related to diverging national accessibility between national accessibility requirements.

requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. However, at the same time, business in those 15 This would mean that local businesses that are countries that are not expected to have adopted

This may in turn have a positive impact on crossactive in countries where accessibility requirements accessibility requirements by 2020 would face border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border have not been adopted may face lower costs than additional costs for ensuring accessibility (to the trade has been fixed at 10%. companies that are based in countries where degree that they are not already doing so on a

The built environment accessibility requirements are in place. This said, voluntary basis).

the companies that do not provide accessible

It is assumed that a range of half to all of those websites may miss out on a large consumer group. This would in turn lead to a level playing field for countries (27) that are expected to adopt technical companies, which is expected to have a positive accessibility requirements by 2020 as identified in It is expected that the cross-border trade could impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

the baseline scenario will follow the increase. The policy option is expected to have a positive

Recommendation. The built environment impact on cross-border trade.

Costs related to diverging national accessibility Under this policy option common accessibility The built environment requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. requirements and the mutual recognition principle

Trade has been fixed at 40%. would be applicable in the 27 countries (i.e. the

See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the

entire EU) that are expected to have accessibility policy options would have the same coverage).

requirements in place by 2020. This would result in a reduction of those costs for business that are due

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

to variations between national accessibility requirements.

It is expected that the cross-border trade could increase.

To increase competition Websites Websites Websites

among industry in the Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in Positive impacts on competition are expected in

area of selected goods those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common those countries that are covered by the common

and services and in the accessibility requirements, i.e. three to 12 accessibility requirements, i.e. 12 countries. Given accessibility requirements, across the EU. Given

area of public countries. Given that cross-border trade is expected that cross-border trade is expected to increase and that cross-border trade is expected to increase

procurement to increase and the costs for understanding the costs for understanding different requirements and the costs for understanding different

different requirements across Member States has across Member States has been removed, more requirements across Member States has been been removed, more companies may enter the companies may enter the market. With 12 Member removed, more companies may enter the market. market. The extent to which new market entry can States, representing 85.3% of EU GDP, transposing Under this policy option the Internal Market for be expected to spur competition is linked to this Directive it is expected that new market entry accessible websites is effectively based on amount of countries that follow the will increase competition due to lower costs and an common accessibility requirements and therefore Recommendation, i.e. the more Member States effective increase of the market. not only is new market entry likely based on lower adopt the technical requirements proposed in the costs (as in policy option 3) but also due to a

Recommendation the more likely it is that new The built environment larger market overall internal market for

market entrants compete on the internal market. The impact on new market entrants is likely to be accessible websites.

The built environment limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade The built environment

may, however, spur competition in this sector, as The impact on new market entrants is likely to be one of the barriers to cross-border provision of See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the limited. The positive impact on cross-border trade services would be removed. policy options would have the same coverage). may, however, in turn have a positive impact on competition in this sector.

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (partial coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be Websites Websites and the built environment Websites on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage

of the policy option) accessible: The benefits would be limited to those countries The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those

where accessibility requirements are in place. described for PO2, but the scale of the impacts is described for PO2 and PO3, but the scale of the • Websites for booking likely to be larger than PO2 in line with the impacts is likely to be larger than both options.

accommodation abroad; If no further countries would adopt accessibility expected increased number of countries that would

requirements, the situation would remain the same have the same requirements in place. The built environment

• Accessible hospitality as in the baseline scenario.

facilities See PO3 (the impact would be the same, since the

In case further countries would introduce policy options would have the same coverage). accessibility requirements than in the current situation, the introduction of the relevant accessibility requirements will lead to that a higher number of disabled consumers may benefit from reduced prices online. Consumers that buy crossborder from countries where accessibility requirements are in place would also benefit.

The built environment

The main impact is likely to refer to the availability of information on the level of accessibility for consumers.

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. None of the policy options is likely to leave a major environmental footprint. Action in this area is expected to have a limited but positive impact on the take

up of hospitality services across borders (which would result in environmental impacts due to increased travel e.g. by plane, bus, car or boat) or of Internet / computer uptake and use (which would result in environmental impacts due to changes in the consumption of electricity) but rather on the price of those services for consumers.

14. Public Procurement

14.1. Base figures

Problem Assessment (2011) and Baseline Scenario (2020)

Market turnover in 2011 2.406.980.000.000

CAGR 0,0%

Market turnover in 2020 2.406.980.000.000

Share of publicly procured goods that can be linked to 62,4%

accessibility

Total turnover of publicly procured goods / services linked to 1.501.426.398.151 accessibility

Current share of public authorities including accessibility/design 6,4%

for-all requirements in the award criteria

Share of costs of accessibility for businesses with regard to public 1,0%

tenders (development costs included)

Share of ongoing costs 0%

Share of Cross-border trade 8,5%

Number of countries for which legislation could be identified

In 2011 (Sample size: 9) 1

In 2020 (extrapolation to EU level) 27

 Share of GDP for relevant countries

In 2011

1 Member State has legislation in place 13,8% In 2020

27 Member States have legislation in place 100%

Correction factor 100%

Share of Additional accessibility costs due to understanding 1%

different accessibility requirements across borders

14.2. Effects of the problem on consumers

Public procurement is a business-to-business market. Hence, consumers are expected not to directly face barriers with regard to publicly procured goods and services. Indirect benefits for consumers can, however, be expected, for example, linked to more accessible public goods/services provided as a result of accessible public procurement such as the built environment (in relation to transport and government buildings), selfservice terminals (in relation to transport) and websites (concerning public websites including those of public transport companies). Accessible goods and services are also essential for the employees of public administrations. Having accessibility built in the goods and services that public authorities purchase reduces the level of assistive solutions that need to be provided by public authorities leading to savings.

14.3. Assessment of the impacts per policy option

14.3.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline Scenario – Impact Assessment

Table 68: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Public Procurement)

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border Over the next years, accessibility requirements covering

trade in the area of selected public procurement can be expected to be adopted by all

goods and services and in 27 EU Member States due to the obligations for the MS

the area of public under the UNCRPD.

procurement The revised Public Procurement Directives making

0 0 accessibility compulsory are likely to be used as an inspiration by EU Member States adopting legislation

containing accessibility requirements to be used in public procurement. Several Member States have already done so like Italy for example. Some divergences can be expected, thus hampering cross-border trade. Current efforts will potentially be fostered by currently on-going standardisation work at the EU level.

Policy Objectives Rating Explanation

(Assessment criteria) Effectiveness Efficiency

To increase competition The expected variations between national technical

among industry in the area accessibility requirements are likely to make it difficult for

of selected goods and 0 0 new market entrants, in particular, to engage in crossservices

and in the area of border trade. Differences between legislation in the countries are likely to have a negative impact on the

public procurement industry.

Overall score 0 0

Average score 0 0

Other a

Table 69: Impacts of Policy Option 1 (Baseline Scenario, Public Procurement)

Assessment criteria Rating Explanation

Social Impacts (impacts on Disabled persons different groups)

The increased number of countries that are expected to adopt accessibility requirements concerning public procurement is likely to have a positive impact on the level of accessibility of goods and services that are used by the public, e.g. built environment, Information kiosk, web sites, and public transport. This means that more disabled people are likely to be able to have access to build environment, ICT, and transportation. Disabled persons and elderly will be able to benefit of better choice.

0

Elderly

Elderly are expected to benefit from accessible public procurement in the same way as persons with disabilities do.

General population

The level of accessibility of public procurement is unlikely to have any major impacts on non-disabled persons.

Environmental impacts 0 No major environmental impacts can be associated with the accessibility of

public procurement.

Overall score 0

Average score 0

14.3.2. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 – Impact Assessment

Table 70: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Public Procurement)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Policy Objectives

(assessment criteria) (partial coverage) (full coverage)

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency

To improve cross-border trade in the area of selected goods and       services and in the area of public procurement

To increase competition among industry in the area of selected goods

and services and in the      

area of public procurement

Overall score 2 2 4 4 4 4

Average score 1 1 2 2 2 2

Table 71: Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating (Public Procurement)

PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive PO 4 Directive

Assessment criteria

(partial coverage) (full coverage)

Social Impacts (impacts

on different groups)   

Environmental impacts 0 0 0

Table 72: Assessment of Impacts of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Explanation of Ratings (Public Procurement)

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (in this case: full coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Policy Options 2, 3 and 4: Rating

To improve cross-border Companies that are active on the It is assumed that either 14 (half of the) EU Under this policy option common accessibility Under this policy option common requirements trade in the area of EU market would have to ensure / Member States or 27 EU Member States that adopt requirements would also be applicable in all 27 EU would also have EU wide coverage. This would

selected goods and provide the following: technical accessibility requirements by 2020 will Member States. This would result in a reduction of result in an elimination of costs for business that

services and in the area follow the Recommendation. those costs for business that are due to variations are due to variations between national • Accessible information of public procurement between national accessibility requirements. accessibility requirements. concerning the accessibility Costs related to diverging national accessibility

of the good / services requirements are expected to decrease accordingly. This would in turn lead to a level playing field for This would in turn lead to a level playing field for companies, which is expected to have a positive companies, which is expected to have a positive

• Accessible goods / services This would in turn lead to a level playing field for impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade. impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade.

that are subject to the actual companies, which is expected to have a positive public procurement process impact on the possibilities for cross-border trade. Similar to PO2, it is expected that the cross-border The policy option is expected to have a positive trade could increase. impact on cross-border trade. In the baseline scenario, cross-border trade has been fixed at 8.5%.

163

Policy Objectives / Broad types of impacts PO 2 Recommendation PO 3 Directive (in this case: full coverage) PO 4 Directive (full coverage)

Assessment criteria expected to result from the technical requirements

To increase competition Positive impacts on competition are expected in Given that cross-border trade is expected to Given that cross-border trade is expected to

among industry in the those countries that are covered by the common increase and the costs for understanding different increase and the costs for understanding different

area of selected goods accessibility requirements, i.e. 14 EU Member requirements across Member States has been requirements across Member States has been

and services and in the States. Given that cross-border trade is expected to removed, more companies may enter the market. removed, more companies may enter the market.

area of public increase and the costs for understanding different Their accessible goods and services can be offered Under this policy option the Internal Market is requirements across Member States has been to public authorities across borders without having effectively based on common accessibility

procurement removed, more companies may enter the market. to adapt requirements. Companies can concentrate requirements and therefore not only is new

The extent to which new market entry can be in competing with their peers to sell to public market entry likely based on lower costs as in expected to spur competition is linked to amount of authorities the most accessible goods and services. policy option 3 but also due to a larger market countries that follow the Recommendation, i.e. the New market entry will increase competition due to overall internal market for accessible public more Member States adopt the technical lower costs and an effective increase of the market. procurement. requirements proposed in the Recommendation the more likely it is that new market entrants compete on the internal market.

Impact of the Policy Options on social groups and the environment

Social Impacts (impacts Disabled consumers would be It is assumed that 14 EU Member States will adopt The types of impacts will be similar to those The types of impacts will be similar to those on different groups) ensured (in line with the coverage legislation due efforts under the UNCRPD and the described for PO2 but the scale of the impact is described for PO3. The scale of the impact is

of the policy option) accessible: Public Procurement Directive. However, expected to be higher as it is expected that 27 EU expected to be similar. costs/benefits for consumers cannot be calculated Member States adopt accessibility requirements.

• Information concerning the due to the diverse nature of the public Impacts can, however, not be quantified.

accessibility of the good / procurement and the variety of industries involved.

service;

• Accessible goods / services that are subject to the actual public procurement process

Environmental impacts No explicit requirements. No major environmental impacts can be associated with the accessibility of public procurement.

164

A NNEX 8: P UBLIC P ROCUREMENT INCLUDING P UBLIC AND TOTAL DEMAND BY PRODUCT IN

2005 (A LL P RODUCTS )

The following list of goods and services provide an overview of the key relevant goods and

services for accessibility 13 .

Public and total demand by product in 2005 (all products)

Short Name of Product Priority Products relevant for accessibility

Products of agriculture No

Products of forestry No

Fish and other fishing products No

Coal and lignite; peat No

Crude petroleum/natural gas No

Uranium and thorium ores No

Metal ores No

Other mining products No

Food products and beverages Yes – labelling

Tobacco products No

Textiles Yes – labelling

Wearing apparel; furs No

Leather and leather products No

Wood and products of wood No

Pulp, paper and paper products No

Printed matter/recorded media Yes

Coke, refined petroleum prod No

13 FINAL REPORT CROSS-BORDER PROCUREMENT ABOVE EU THRESHOLDS http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/modernising_rules/cross-borderprocurement_en.pdf

165

Chemicals/chemical products Yes- labelling

Rubber and plastic products No

Other non-metallic min. prod No

Basic metals No

Fabricated metal products No

Machinery and equipment n.e.c. Yes

Office machinery/computers Yes

Electrical machinery/apparatus Yes

TV/communication equip. Yes

Medical etc instruments Yes

Motor vehicles/ trailers Yes

Other transport equipment Yes

Furniture/other manufact. Goods Yes

Secondary raw materials No

Electrical energy/gas/steam No

Collected and purified water No

Construction work Yes

Trade/ maintenance/repair Yes

Wholesale trade No

Retail trade services Yes

Hotel and restaurant services Yes

Land transport Yes

Water transport services Yes

Air transport services Yes

Auxiliary transport services Yes

Post/Telecommunication Yes

166

Financial intermediation Yes

Insurance/pension funding Yes

Auxiliary fin. intermediation Yes

Real estate services Yes

Renting services of machinery Yes

Computer and related services Yes

Research and development Yes

Other business services No

Public administration Yes

Education services Yes

Health and social work services Yes

Sewage/refuse disposal serv. No

Membership organisation serv. No

Recreational, cultural services Yes

Other services -

Priv. households with empl. pers Yes

TOTAL 59

TOTAL - ACCESSIBILITY

RELEVANT PRODUCTS 33

The accessibility relevant goods and services in public procurement

The relevance of public procured goods, as laid down in the proposed rules on public procurement, is the intention that the goods and the services would be used by persons.

Furthermore, not all goods and services which are intended for people are equally accessibility relevant. Guided by the common practices and using the possibility of exception in duly justified cases, the contracting authorities will naturally make their own selection criterion. All raw materials and other large and undefined categories of products were therefore in principle excluded from the list as they are not directly used by people, even if such categories may potentially include some accessibility relevant goods and services – ex. wood and products of wood, fabricated metal products. On the contrary, the list contains

167

corresponding categories, which are more specific and have a more obvious accessibility

relevance hence being identified as a priority. Such categories include furniture (relevant for

wood products) or machineries (relevant for fabricated metal products). Two rather general

categories were nonetheless included in the list of accessibility relevant goods and services

because of their specific nature. Chemical products were kept on the list because of the

importance of labelling of those products for safety of persons who may use them. Textiles

were also kept in the list.

Finally, it must be pointed out that the above selection is approximate and only identifies priorities. It was done for the purpose of this report and in particular to estimate the size and value of the relevant markets. The national contracting entities are not bound by the above list and they will evaluate the situation acting within the framework of the EU rules on public procurement and on case by case basis. Only 1/5 of total public expenditure on goods and services is covered by the EU Public Procurement Directives. Indeed, EU rules on public

procurement 14 only concern transactions which value reach high thresholds (5 000 000 EUR

for works contracts, 400 000 EUR for supplies contracts and from 200 000 to 130 000 EUR

for certain services and design contracts 15 ). The same thresholds are foreseen in the relevant

provisions of the proposed Public Procurement Directives.

Consequently the fact that a category is not used for the counting cannot imply its exclusion from the obligation under the Directive.

While the table for public demand subject to public procurement includes in total 59 products, 33 of them are relevant for accessibility. Accessibility relevant products correspond therefore to about 52% of all procurement products and to 63% of all procurement products in terms of value of contracts.

Once more it is important to note that this concerns goods and services that are procured by contracting entities, for example some of the public procurement bids covered by the Utilities

Directive concern the supply of water or gas- such supply contracts whose accessibility relevant is less than for other goods and services like for example transport, ICT, or

constructions work 16 . However, other for contracts covered by the public procurement

Directives accessibility is a priority hence accessibility shall be in principle taken into account by the contracting entities when drafting technical specifications.

In fact, as shown in the table, the priority accessibility relevant goods and services which are covered by the EU rules on public procurement would, similarly as all other goods and services, typically concern the areas which are most relevant for the socio-economic integration of persons with disabilities into societies, i.e. the areas of built environment, ICT and transport (without however being limited to those areas). Accordingly, typical accessible goods and services covered by the EU rules on public procurement will include for instance contracts for construction of public buildings and built environment in general, all transport

14 Commission Regulation No 1251/2011 i of 30 November 2011 amending Directives 2004/17/EC i, 2004/18/EC i and 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of their application thresholds for the procedures for the awards of contract.

15 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/rules/current/

16 The proposed EU rules on public procurement specify that: "for all procurement the subject of which is intended for use by persons, whether general public or staff of the contracting authority, [the] technical specifications shall, except in duly justified cases, be drawn up so as to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users".

168

relevant contracts including the means of transportation, the relevant built environment (trainstations)

as well as accessible methods of purchasing tickets (websites and ticketing

machines). In the area of ICT, the rules will cover public purchases of computers (software

and hardware), other devices or services enabling accessible transfer of information, (services

enabling contacts with public authorities emergency services and the relevant equipment,

public on-line publications) as well as telephones or mobile phones.

Entities concerned:

Entities concerned: there are about 250 000 government departments, agencies, public bodies and other public entities involved in the award and management of public contracts.

169

A NNEX 9: I MPACT ON F UNDAMENTAL R IGHTS

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ('the Charter') became legally binding following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. All legislative proposals of the

Commission are subject to a systematic check to ensure their compliance with the Charter. This annex evaluates in detail the impact of the Commission proposal suggested in this

Impact Assessment on the relevant fundamental rights embodied in the Charter. They include: the freedom to conduct a business (article 16), the right to integration of persons with disabilities (article 26), and the freedom of movement and residence (article 45).

On the whole, the Commission proposal would have a positive impact on the rights provided for in the Charter particularly with regard to their access by persons with disabilities.

However, the scale of the positive impact on fundamental rights may vary. While regarding some fundamental rights the impact of the proposal would only be positive, as far as other rights are concerned the impact would be mixed although in balance the proposal would not have an overall negative impact on any of the abovementioned rights.

I – A Positive Impact

An initiative which would facilitate the functioning of the internal market concerning accessible goods and services would have a positive impact on several rights recognised for in the Charter. Regarding persons with functional limitations, including persons with disabilities, an EU initiative would have a beneficial impact and directly or indirectly facilitate the exercise of the following rights: the right to human dignity (article 1 of the Charter), the right to integrity of the person (article 3). Accessibility will have a positive impact on access to employment of persons with disabilities) the rights of the elderly (article 25), the right to integration of persons with disabilities (article 26), and the freedom of movement and of residence (article 45). The two latter articles are examined in detail.

— Article 26 Integration of persons with disabilities

Article 26 provides that: «The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community. »

According to the «Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights» 17 , the

principle set out in this Article of the EU Charter is based on Article 15 of the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe and also draws on point 26 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. The latter provides that:

«All disabled persons, whatever the origin and nature of their disablement, must be entitled to additional concrete measures aimed at improving their social and professional integration. These measures must concern, in particular, according to the capacities of the beneficiaries, vocational training, ergonomics, accessibility, mobility, means of transport and housing.»

17 OJ C 303 of 14/12/2007, p.17.

170

It is also noteworthy that Article 15(3) of the revised Social Charter of 1996 provides that:

«With a view to ensuring to persons with disabilities, irrespective of age and the nature and origin of their disabilities, the effective exercise of the right to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, the Parties undertake, in particular: (…) to promote their full social integration and participation in the life of the community in particular through measures, including technical aids, aiming to overcome barriers to communication and mobility and enabling access to transport, housing, cultural activities and leisure.»

It follows that the Commission proposal, in as much as it would result in the increase of accessibility of [the removal and prevention of barriers to the access to] goods and services available to persons with disabilities, would simultaneously also embody the right provided in

Article 26 of the Charter, since it would facilitate the «independence», «social integration» and «participation in the life of the community» of persons with disabilities.

Furthermore given the strong correlation between disability and ageing it would positively contribute to the rights of elderly persons in particular the proposal will have a positive effect on their independence and participation in social and cultural rights in line with Article 25.

— Article 45 on the freedom of movement and residence

The objective of the suggested Commission proposal is not the freedom of movement of persons at such, but the facilitation of the free movement of accessible goods and services in the internal market. Therefore, its proposed legal basis is Article 114 TFEU. However, the

Commission proposal would also have an indirect positive impact on the freedom of movement and residence of EU citizens and of the entitled nationals of third countries. The harmonisation of accessibility requirements of goods and services across all Member States will not only benefit economic operators. It will also benefit citizens as consumers in cross border situations and thus make easy their movement. For example, if a person with a visual impairment can have better access to a website to buy flight tickets for cross border trips, the practical possibilities for her or him to effectively exercise the freedom of movement in the

European Union are increased to the same extent.

II - A Mixed Impact

— Article 16 on the freedom to conduct a business

This Article recognises «[t]he freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices (…).»

First and foremost, by increasing the potential of the internal market through the elimination of obstacles to trade, the initiative would facilitate the exercise of this right in cross borders situations.

However, in some cases an EU initiative which would facilitate the functioning of the internal market concerning accessible goods and services could also entail a limited restriction to the exercise of that freedom. In some Member States the initiative could result in the adoption of new rules, which would be added to those already existing at national level. However, the restrictions resulting from these new rules would be justified and proportional. Their main justification is the fact that they would result in an increase of the potential for intra-EU trade,

171

which the economic operators themselves would benefit from. In addition, from a

fundamental rights perspective, the new rules are also justified with a view to promoting other

fundamental rights, such as those abovementioned.

In line with Article 52 of the Charter, in particular its paragraph 1, the new rules respect the principle of proportionality, since they are limited to what is necessary to meet the objective of facilitating the functioning of the internal market. The application of the new accessibility requirements is subject to the condition that they don't entail a disproportionate burden to the economic operators concerned. Moreover, these requirements would enter into force in a progressive manner, which gives plenty of time for economic operators to adjust gradually to the investments necessary to benefit from an enlarged internal market.

Finally the Charter refers in article 53 on the "level of protection" to other international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party. In this context is important to mention that the EU and the majority of its Member States are already parties to the UN

Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities. The purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities. This proposal will facilitate the implementation of the obligations on accessibility in the UNCRPD facilitating a uniform level of protection across the EU and a common interpretation.

172

A NNEX 10: L IST OF ACCESSIBILITY RELEVANT EU ACTS

The present list lays down accessibility relevant EU acts. Its objective is to show a global and

complete picture of accessibility relevant acts adopted and proposed at the EU level 18 . The

list shows the current legal context in the area of accessibility and indicates possible added value of the envisaged new EU initiative. Such initiative would not amend the existing EU rules in the area of accessibility (i.e. it would be without prejudice to the existing provisions).

It may however complete some of them.

The EU acts are divided into two main sections. Section I encloses EU acts that refer to accessibility in general terms – i.e. without providing for technical accessibility requirements/specifications. Section II includes EU acts that require accessibility and provide for technical accessibility specifications. Such distinction is important.

Besides, the list indicates that many of the already adopted EU acts referring to accessibility concern the well-functioning of the internal market and are based on the internal market legal basis. These are in particular those EU acts that refer to accessibility of particular goods and services directly (ex. lifts, packaging of medicines, construction products, buses, certain universal services such as telecommunication services and networks, broadcasting services) or indirectly (ex.: public procurement).

I. EU acts referring to accessibility without providing for technical accessibility

requirements

This Section lists EU acts that refer to accessibility without laying down their own technical specifications. The list is divided into two subsections. The first presents acts that refer to goods and services indirectly (they are not specified and the list of the relevant goods and services is not closed). The second list includes all those acts that refer to accessibility of goods and services directly (they are specified).

1. Accessibility as a characteristic not related to particular goods and

services: EU rules on public procurement and European Structural Funds

Public Procurement

According to the currently binding rules: "whenever possible" technical specifications set out in the contract documentation should take into account "accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users". The Commission proposals to revise this legislation go a step further. The draft Directives provide that, when the subject of procurement is intended for use by persons, the technical specifications shall "be drawn up so as to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users." This would be the new general rule; exceptions would be possible only "in duly justified cases." Moreover,

18 Originally, the list was inspired by an Appendix to the Council decision 2010/48/EC i of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community of the UN Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities. The Appendix shows the EU competences in the area of disability, including accessibility. The present list is updated and lays down only those EU acts that refer to accessibility of certain goods and services directly (ex.: lifts) or indirectly (by referring to selection criteria ex. in public procurement). The list should be complete. Various accessibility relevant EU policies are nonetheless at constant development and thus this list should not be considered as final.

173

according to the new proposals, when contracting authorities decide to award contracts on the

basis of the most economically advantageous tender, the latter shall be identified based upon

criteria which include, inter alia, accessibility and design for all users.

• Directive 2004/17/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors – the "Classical Directive"

• Directive 2004/18/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – the "Utilities Directive"

• Proposal for a Directive replacing Directive 2004/17 i - Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (SEC(2011) 1585}{SEC(2011) 1586

• Proposal for a Directive replacing "the Classical Directive" – Directive 2004/18 i- Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement

{SEC(2011) 1585 final}{SEC(2011) 1586 final}

Structural Funds

The currently binding EU Structural Funds refer to accessibility for disabled person as one of the criteria to be observed in defining operations co-financed by the Funds and to be taken into account during the various stages of implementation. It provides that "accessibility for disabled persons" shall be taken into account both in the selection of operations co-financed by the Funds and during the various stages of their implementation. In 2011, the Commission proposed to revise that Regulation, by requiring that accessibility shall be taken into account as regards the content of each operational programme, the activities of the monitoring committee, and the annual implementation reports to be submitted by Member States to the

Commission. Annex IV of that proposal also establishes that, as general ex-ante conditionality, there must be a mechanism ensuring an effective implementation of the UN

Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

• Council Regulation No 1083/2006 i of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 i;

• Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social

Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 i (COM/2011/0615 final - 2011/0276 (COD) i)

2. Provisions related to needs of persons with disabilities

Information and Communication Technologies

174

The EU approaches accessibility in the area of telecommunication mostly from the

perspective of a universal service. Most of the EU provisions in this area have an enabling

character: i.e. they lay down obligations or guidelines on the national regulatory authorities

enabling them to address the needs of persons with disabilities. Only the Universal Service

Directive lays down concrete obligation on the Member States. It concerns the application of

universal service and the emergency services such as "112 number" and "116 number".

• Framework Directive - Directive 2002/21/EC i of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic

communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002,

• p. 

  33), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC i of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 25 November 2009 (OJ L 337, 18.12.2009, p. 37) and Regulation 544/2009 i

of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 (OJ L 167 29.6.2009,

p.12)

The Framework Directive lays down obligations on the national regulatory authorities to address the needs of disabled users. It states that the national regulatory authorities shall promote competition in the provision of electronic communications networks, electronic communications services and associated facilities and services by inter alia: ensuring that users, including disabled users, elderly users, and users with special social needs derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price, and quality.

• Universal services Directive - Directive 2002/22/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ L 108,

24.4.2002, p.51) as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 (OJ L 337, 18.12.2009, p. 11)

The Directive refers to accessibility and affordability of specified universal services to disabled end-users, such as publicly available electronic communication services, directory enquiry services and directories provided by undertakings designated with universal service obligations, as well as ensuring equivalence in access and choice for disabled end-users provided by any undertakings providing publicly available electronic communications services. Several its provisions have an enabling character. However, the provisions related to universal service and emergency services impose an obligation on the Member States that disabled end-users have the access to emergency services equivalent to that enjoyed by other end-users.

• AVMS Directive - Directive 2010/13 i/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audio-visual media services (Audio-visual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p.1)

Audio-visual Media Services Directive states that Member States shall encourage media service providers under their jurisdiction to ensure that their services are gradually made accessible to people with a visual or hearing disability.

175

• Proposal for a Directive on Web-Accessibility – Proposal for a Directive of the

European Parliament and of the Council on the accessibility of public sector bodies´ websites

COM (2012) 721 final i

The proposal lays down accessibility requirements for a set of public sector bodies´ websites offering essential services to citizens. The proposal establishes accessibility requirements for the websites concerned. The proposal includes a presumption of conformity clause with harmonised European standards, meaning that websites concerned that meet the respective standards are presumed to be in conformity with the accessibility requirements set out in the proposal. The requirements are in line with the Success Criteria and Compliance

Requirements of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA.

Passengers' rights

The EU acts in the area of passenger's' rights regulate the protection of, and assistance to, disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility at the EU level while travelling by different modes of transportation. These acts do not relate to accessibility of goods and services.

• Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing

Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 i (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1)

• Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 1)

• Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14)

• Regulation No 1177/2010 i of 24 November 2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 i (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p.1)

• Regulation No 181/2011 i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending

Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 i (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1)

Construction products

• Regulation 305/2011 i/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 lying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC i (OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 5).

The Regulation does not lay down an obligation to make products accessible. Annex to the Regulation refers to accessibility as one of basic requirements that may be taken into account when elaborating relevant standards.

Radio equipment and telecommunications

176

• RTD Directive - Directive 1999/5/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9

March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the

mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10)

The Directive enables the Commission to decide that certain apparatus shall be constructed that it supports certain features in order to facilitate its use by users with disabilities. The

Commission has not made a use of this provision yet.

Transport

• Directive 2008/57/EC i of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (Recast) (OJ L 191, 18.7.2008, p.1)

The Directive lays down general accessibility requirements related to the train infrastructure and the rolling stock.

• Proposal for a Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network {SEC(2011) 1212}{SEC(2011) 1213}

According to the Regulation, development of the infrastructure of the trans-European transport network shall pursue the objectives of accessibility for elderly people, persons with reduced mobility and disabled passengers. In particular, the transport infrastructure shall allow seamless mobility and accessibility for all users.

II. EU acts requiring accessibility of certain goods and services and providing for

their technical accessibility requirements/specifications

This Section lists EU acts that refer to accessibility of particular products and lay down their technical specifications. These provisions are detailed enough to be directly applicable by economic operators. The new EU initiative would not be applicable to those acts.

Packaging of medicines

• Directive 2004/27/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC i on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 34).

The Directive requires that the name of medicinal products is expressed in Braille format on the packaging. The marketing authorisation holder shall also ensure that the package information leaflet is made available on request from patient's organisations in formats appropriate for the blind and partially-sighted.

Lifts

• Directive 95/16/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts (OJ L 213, 7.9.1995, p.

1), as amended by Directive 2006/42/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC i (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 24)

177

The accessibility of lifts constitutes one of the essential health and safety requirements.

Accessibility is also included in the relevant standard proving conformance with the

Directive.

Transport

• Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (OJ L 200,

31.7.2009, p. 1)

The Regulation requires accessibility for people with reduced mobility for certain classes of vehicles.

• Directive 2009/45/EC i of 6 May 2009 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (Recast) (OJ L 163, 25.6.2009, p. 1)

The Directive requires that Member States ensure safe access to persons with reduced mobility to passenger ships. Precise guidelines are laid down in the relevant annex.

• Commission Decision 2008/164/EC i of 21 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to ‘persons with reduced mobility’ in the trans

European conventional and high-speed rail system (OJ L 64, 7.3.2008, p. 72)

The Decision on the interoperability of the high-speed rail system lay down detailed technical specification related to accessibility of the relevant train infrastructure and of the rolling stock including train equipment.

178

A NNEX 11: S MALL AND M EDIUM E NTERPRISES , INCLUDING MICRO - ENTERPRISES :

C ONSULTATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS (SME S T EST )

1. Introduction

In order to minimise the regulatory burden on very small companies to the absolute minimum, the Commission outlined in November 2011 its new policy on "Minimizing regulatory burden

for SMEs - Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises" 19 . The implementation of this policy on micro-enterprises is detailed in operational guidelines 20 . According to this

new policy, the Commission's preparation of all future legislative proposals is based on the

premise that in particular micro-enterprises 21 should a priori be excluded from the scope of

the proposed legislation unless the necessity and proportionality of their being covered can be demonstrated. Where micro-enterprises must be covered by legislative proposals for public policy reasons recourse to adapted solutions and lighter regimes will be sought concerning all forms of regulatory burden including, in particular, regarding administrative requirements.

The demonstration of the proportionality of covering micro-enterprises and the assessment of possible adapted solutions should be included in the Impact Assessment, thus adding a specific micro-enterprises dimension to the 'SME test'.

In line with this Commission policy, it has been decided to include micro-enterprises in the scope of application of the policy action under consideration. The analysis below focusses therefore on SMEs, including micro-enterprises.

Due to their size and scarce resources, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 22

can be affected by the costs of regulations more than their bigger competitors. At the same time, the benefits of regulations tend to be more evenly distributed over companies of different sizes. SMEs may have limited scope for benefiting from economies of scale. SMEs in general find it more difficult to access capital and as a result the cost of capital for them is often higher than for larger businesses. SMEs play a key role in shaping Europe's economy, accounting for 99 % of enterprises, of which 92 % are micro-enterprises. They provide more than two thirds of private sector employment and play a key role in economic growth.

Generally, on average, where a big company spends one euro per employee to comply with a regulatory duty a medium-sized enterprise might have to spend around four euros and a small

business up to ten euros. 23 Depending on the relevance of the initiative for SMEs and in

particular micro-enterprises, appropriate consultation to ensure input on the needs and interests of SMEs, in particular micro-enterprises alongside large enterprises, should be

used. 24

19 COM(2011)803 i

20 Ref. Ares(2012)557005 - 07/05/2012

21 Enterprises with less than 10 employees and a turnover or balance sheet total equal to or less than €2 million. 22 The definition of an SME covers all enterprises with less than 250 employees and equal to or less than either

€50 million turnover or €43 million balance sheet total. Micro-enterprises are the smallest category of SME, with less than ten employees and a turnover or balance sheet total equal to or less than €2 million.

23 Report from the Expert Group on “Models to Reduce the Disproportionate Regulatory burden on SMEs”, May 2007.

24 Annex 8.4(1) of the Impact Assessment Guidelines contains specific suggestions on how to consult SME representatives.

179

2. Consultation of small and medium-sized enterprises

The SME Panel was conducted through Enterprise Europe Network between end of April and end of July 2012. 180 companies responded to this survey on accessibility, which focused on mainstream accessible goods and services used by most people, not the so-called assistive

devices 25 . The aim of this survey was to gain a better understanding of the most important

sectors and to identify problematic issues from the industry’s perspective, which may arise as a result of current legal fragmentation concerning the regulation of accessibility of goods and services and market issues. Of particular importance is the market supply of goods and services for which accessibility is included in the design stage to take into account the needs of the widest variety of users (i.e. Design for All/Universal Design).

The summary of the analysis is presented along the following topics:

 General information about the companies;

 How accessibility is considered in the organisation;

 Obstacles to producing and providing accessible goods and services;

 Estimates of the costs and benefits derived from providing accessible goods and

services; and

 Possible EU measures to encourage companies to provide more accessible goods and

services.

General information about the companies

The 180 companies which responded to the survey are established in 14 of the Member States. They operate in one or more of the Member States, covering them all, and some also trade beyond EU borders. 42% of the respondents are micro companies (1-9 employees), 29% are small companies (10-49 employees), 17% are medium companies (50-249 employees),

10% are large companies (more than 250 employees) and 2% did not specify their size.

The main economic sectors in which companies surveyed operate are "Manufacturing" and "Professional, scientific and technical activities". There is also a significant presence of companies falling under the sectors of "Information and communication”, "Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles", and "Construction".

More than half of the respondents sell goods or services to public authorities and four out of five of these companies have stated that accessibility requirements are sometimes or frequently included in tender specifications.

Approximately two in three companies surveyed declared they are familiar with the concept of accessibility as outlined in the introduction to the survey. There is some correlation

25 i.e. special devices used to replace, compensate for, or improve the functional abilities of people with disabilities like mobility and visual/hearing aids, orthotics/prosthetics, speech devices, medical supplies, environmental controls, and respiratory devices.

180

between the size of the companies surveyed and their familiarity with the concept of

accessibility, since that familiarity is higher in medium-sized or large companies than it is in

small or micro ones. Medium-sized enterprises have a greater familiarity with the concept of

accessibility than large ones, although the differences are not significant.

About half of the companies surveyed (88 of 180) provide customers accessible goods and services. There is also a clear correlation between the provision of accessible goods and services and familiarity with the concept of accessibility. The majority of the organisations that provide accessible goods and services operate in the sectors of "built environment" or

"information and communication", but also companies providing transportation of goods and services, legal advisory services, accessibility consultancy and training, consultancy and auditing services.

How accessibility is considered in the organisation

For the 88 respondents that provide accessible goods and services, the most important reason for doing so is corporate social responsibility / corporate image of the company. The importance of this reason has been evaluated with an average of 4.7 on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 means that it is not an important reason to provide accessible goods and services and

6 is a very important reason. Other reasons deemed important are compliance with legislation, the fact that accessibility features are a good way of reaching more clients and that accessibility involves no significant additional costs (with mean values of 4.6, 4.0 and 3.6 respectively).

In general, companies surveyed give less importance to the profitability of providing accessible goods and services, and the fact that accessibility allows participation in additional public procurement tenders (mean values of 3.4 and 3.2).

Companies that do not provide accessible goods and services (or those that do not know if they do so) considered that the most important factor that could cause additional cost to them if they did provide accessible goods and services is the time spent to understand the requirements, standards and legislation about accessibility in their country. This factor has been rated with 4.2 on a scale of 1 to 6.

Other factors deemed important are the additional time and costs necessary to study the market and to estimate the necessary investments (rated to 3.8), the time spent understanding requirements, standards and legislation in other Members States when trading cross-borders and the additional cost of designing accessible goods or services (both rated to 3.7), additional manufacturing costs (3.6), training staff about accessibility (3.5) and costs relating to getting legal expertise on accessibility legislation when trading in other Member State (3.4).

Additional costs related to distribution and training of staff on the diverse accessibility requirements in other Member States and those arising from marketing and advertising in the country of origin or third countries have a somewhat smaller, but still significant ranking

(between 3.3 and 2.9 average rating on the 1 to 6 scale used).

Companies that do not provide accessible goods and services tend to give more weight to the factors that may cause costs in the provision of accessible goods and services than companies that provide this kind of goods and services. The only factor of cost that is seen less important by companies that do not provide accessible goods and services in comparison with those that do is training staff about accessibility.

181

Obstacles to producing and providing accessible goods and services

Three in four companies that provide accessible goods and services declared never having to deal with accessibility standards of other countries that were different from those applied in the country they are based, although it should be noted that many of them do not export goods and services to other Member States. Out of all the companies that provide accessible goods and services, 15% reported having to deal with it. Considering only exporting companies that provide accessible goods and services, the percentage of those who have had to deal often or very often with accessibility rules different from the ones in their main location rises to 30%.

Actual or potential obstacles to the provision of accessible goods and services to the surveyed companies seen as most important are lack of information and guidelines on accessibility

(scored 3.8 on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 means 'not important' 6 means 'very important'), lack of knowledge of accessibility, and complexity of the legislation (both scored 3.7). Also considered as major obstacles are the complexity of standards and the weak aggregate demand for goods and services accessible (both with a value of 3.6 on the scale proposed), complexity of information and guidelines and lack of knowledge about the size of investment required

(both factors scored 3.5) and the unwillingness of customers to pay more for accessible goods and services (3.4).

With a score somewhat lower, but not negligible, are rated other factors such as the lack of standards and legislation, the established strong position of some competitors in the market and the differences in the accessibility requirements within countries and between EU

Member States (all these factors scored 3.2), and uncertainties about short-term performance of the investments required (3.1).

Estimates of the costs and benefits derived from providing accessible goods and services

Respondent’s perceptions on the effect that providing accessible goods and services has on the number of customers are mostly positive. While 25% consider that the effect was significant or very significant, and 28% that the effect was positive but slight, 21% noted that in general, accessibility has not impacted significantly on the number of customers, and 23% said, more categorical, not having experienced any increase in their clientele derived from improving the accessibility of its goods and services.

Perceptions of companies are somewhat less positive when referring to the effect that improvements in the accessibility of their goods and services have had on their financial benefits. The proportion of those who believe that these effects were significant or very significant is still 20%, and of those that consider the effects have been slight were 18%. On the contrary, those that believe that in general its benefits have not been impacted were 34%.

Those who think that the improvement of accessibility has not had any effect at all on its results were 23%. As one would expect, an increase in customers correlated to a certain extent with an increase in financial benefit.

In conclusion, 55% of companies that provide accessible goods and services have increased their clientele as a result of improving the accessibility of their goods and services, and 39% have experienced increases in their financial benefits for this reason.

182

The proportion that represents accessible goods and services on the total of the supply of

goods and services provided by the companies who responded to the survey varies greatly,

and so is the proportion of total revenues related to accessible goods and services. Although

there is a correlation, it is not possible to establish a direct link between the share of

accessible goods and services and their revenues. Overall the proportion of total revenues

related to the provision of accessible goods and services is perceived as lower than the

proportion that represents accessible goods and services on total offer of the company.

Providing accessible goods and services may pose specific costs. The main factors considered by the respondents that may cause costs when providing accessible goods and services are training staff about accessibility and the time spent understanding requirements, standards and legislation in their own Member State (both with an average rating of 3.7 on a 1 to 6 scale where 1 means 'not important' 6 means 'very important'). Also cited as relatively important were the additional design costs (3.5), the time spent understanding requirements/standards/legislation in other Member States when trading cross-border (3.3), the additional manufacturing costs (3.3), the training of staff about diverse accessibility requirements including legislation in other Member States (3.3), and the cost for getting legal expertise on accessibility legislation when trading in other Member States (3.0). Other factors such as additional costs for marketing and advertising or in the delivery of goods and services are considered less important.

The estimated extra production cost directly attributable to the provision of accessible goods and services compared to those who do not provide them also has a very wide range of variation, although almost half of surveyed companies that provide accessible goods and services consider these extra costs below 5% or non-existent.

For 77% of the companies that provide accessible goods and services (including the ones previously mentioned) the extra production costs attributable to the provision of goods and services that are accessible represents a maximum of 30% of their costs. The remaining 17% of companies have stated that their extra costs are equal to or greater than 31%, however, these costs are offset by the income received, as they all have experienced increases in the number of customers and profits resulting from the provision of goods and services accessible to over 31%. Compared to all the surveyed companies and to all companies that provide accessible goods and services, these companies facing high extra production costs are larger, sell more to public authorities and frequently found more accessibility requirements for goods and services included in the tender specifications.

Perceptions of the companies surveyed show some confidence in the market potential for accessible goods and services. Almost 50% agree with the statement "For my company, the group of persons with disabilities and older persons offer an interesting market potential". A very close degree of agreement was raised in the statement “It is profitable for my company to invest in accessible goods and services as there is a reasonable level of demand and customers are willing to pay". However, there is slight less optimism about the chances of selling more goods and services to people with disabilities and elderly people if these were more accessible for them (still 33% of the companies agree with the statement).

Confidence in the positive effect that would result from having common European standards related to accessibility requirements is also moderate. The statements "Common rules with regards to accessibility requirements make it easier for companies to sell to public authorities in other Member States" and "For my company having common rules in Europe on

183

accessibility will make it easier to operate in another Member State" have obtained an

agreement rate of 55% and 50%, respectively.

The level of agreement with statements about market potential of accessibility and effect from having common European standards on accessibility disaggregated by provision or not of accessible goods and services is the following: In general, companies that provide accessible goods and services are more optimistic about the market potential of these goods or services, and have a greater confidence in the positive effects that would result from having common

European standards on accessibility.

Possible EU measures to encourage companies to provide more accessible goods and services

Among the potential measures that the EU could take to encourage companies to produce more accessible goods and services, the respondents valued as most useful the financial support (subsidies, tax incentives and R&D grants), the EU funding of a training programme for the industry on how to implement and monitor accessibility requirements and the adoption of common standards setting out accessibility requirements (instead of letting each Member

State have national rules on accessibility). The usefulness of these measures has been agreed by the companies, respectively, with 84%, 76% and 74%.

In addition, other measures considered useful by the majority of respondents include EU support to self-regulation by industry (67%), the adoption of EU legislation to make the purchasing of accessible goods and services compulsory in public procurement (65%) and the adoption of EU rules containing general obligations for manufacturers and service providers to provide accessible goods and services (65%).

3. Analysis of impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises (SME test)

3.1. Impact of the options on SMEs

The divergences in the national accessibility requirements in the current situation generate higher costs for all types of economic operators, but for SMEs they represent relatively heavier costs than for large economic operators. An SME will have smaller resources to obtain expertise in the applicable legislation or technical standards than a large economic operator as well as it will be less equipped to perform tests and conduct controls and risk analysis for its goods and services. If these divergences in national accessibility requirements will be eliminated it can be expected that they would produce positive effects on all types of economic operators, but with respect to SMEs, these effects may be more accentuated, i.e. have relatively higher positive benefits. A common clear set of accessibility requirements will become more easily accessible to a higher number of SMEs. The cost savings resulting from the enhanced legal clarity would make it possible for a number of SMEs to become able to follow and respect all accessibility requirements.

On the other hand, the costs for SMEs to comply with the applicable accessibility requirements, even if harmonised at EU level, may be more burdensome for SMEs, as they may have fewer financial and human resources to ensure compliance compared to big economic operators.

184

However, having common clear rules in Europe will facilitate the entering of SMEs in new

markets in other Member States without the need of worrying about the compliance of their

products and having to spend further resources on technical and legal advice.

Comparing potential benefits with potential costs, policy action in this area would result in a positive balance for both SMEs and other economic operators concerned.

3.2. Differentiated treatment of SMEs and other economic operators

Applying a differentiated treatment for instance with respect to the level of compliance with accessibility requirements or with respect to reporting obligations in order to further reduce the relative imbalance which the applicable accessibility legislation has on the SMEs does not appear to produce the desired outcomes for SMEs. The impacts of such option would be similar to the abolition of harmonised accessibility requirements, i.e. legal problems, internal market difficulties, discrimination issues, market distortions etc. Moreover, the differentiated treatment of SMEs and other economic operators would be – as far as accessibility requirements are concerned – inapplicable in practice because it would require Member States to differentiate in their enforcement between SMEs and other companies.

This differentiated treatment of SMEs would result in creation of two production and marketing chains: one for goods and services produced by ‘big’ companies and one for SMEs.

This would bring a number of negative results for SMEs: consumers might at the end prefer fully accessible goods and services, therefore the competitiveness of SMEs would suffer in general. At the same time, it would negatively impact SMEs producing fully accessible goods and services, since goods and services made and sold by SMEs in general would get in the perception of consumers the label of being not fully accessible and it would be very difficult for SMEs producing high quality and fully accessible goods and services to convince the consumers about the opposite.

Last but not least, "an SME exemption or a lighter regime" from accessibility rules would paradoxically provide incentive for economic operators to ignore accessibility rules and to market goods and services which would not be accessible.

3.3 Mitigating measures

As part of the contribution to the creation of growth and jobs, the reduction of regulatory burden, in particular in relation to SMEs, is being continuously considered when reviewing and preparing new legislation.

In this particular case, the provision that fundamental alterations to the good and/or service do not need to be made, means that SMEs (and other economic operators) would not have to deviate from their product. Furthermore, the compliance with the requirements should only be made to the extent that it will not impose a disproportionate burden to the economic operator concerned. These provisions could be regarded as particular mitigating measures in order to alleviate burdens resulting from the EU harmonisation of accessibility requirements for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Costs of compliance will be further reduced in case of the development of European standards which would give presumption of conformity with the harmonised accessibility requirements as standards will provide detailed guidance regarding what to implement and even how. This could be also seen as a mitigating measure, since such

185

standards would considerably reduce compliance costs, in particular for micro, small and

medium-sized enterprises.

4. SME test summary

Consultation with SME representatives SMEs were specifically consulted through the

SME Panel during the months of April – July 2012.

Preliminary assessment of business likely to According to the findings of the consultation, be affected SMEs are among the economic operators

affected by the problems identified.

Measures of impact on SMEs If the envisaged options are applied indistinctly to all economic operators irrespective of their size, it can be expected that they would produce the same positive effects on all types of economic operators.

With respect to SMEs, these effects may be more accentuated since the costs savings resulting from the enhanced legal clarity would make it possible for certain SMEs to become able to follow and respect all accessibility requirements.

As regards the negative impacts, it did not appear in the impact assessment that the overall impact of this policy action would bring about significant costs increases to SMEs as well as to other economic operators.

Assessment of alternative options and There was no indication of the need for SMEs mitigating measures specific measures in order to ensure

compliance with the principle of proportionality. In particular due to the practical problems that would likely result from applying a differentiated treatment to SMEs and other economic operators as far as accessibility requirements are concerned. However, the application of certain measures, such as the application of the rules of “fundamental alteration” and of “disproportionate burden”, together with the use of European standards, could be regarded as mitigation measures.

186

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.