EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.9.2021 SWD(2021) 245 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2014/53/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment {COM(2021) 547 final} - {SEC(2021) 318 final} - {SWD(2021) 244 final} - {SWD(2021) 246 final}



1 •Table of Contents 1.1. Introduction: Political and legal context ·1.1. Policy context ·1.2. Legal context 2.2. Problem definition ·2.1. What are the problems? ·2.2. What are the problem drivers? ·2.3. How will the problem evolve? ·2.4. Impact of COVID-19 3.3. Why should the EU act? ·3.1. Legal basis ·3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ·3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 4.4. Objectives: What is to be achieved? ·4.1. General objectives ·4.2. Specific objectives 5.5. What are the available policy options? ·5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ·5.2. Description of the policy options

·5.3. Discarded options and measures 6.6. What are the impacts of the policy options? ·6.1. Policy Option 0 – baseline scenario ·6.2. Policy Option 1 – Harmonisation of the end-device connector ·6.3. Policy Option 2 – Support of the relevant charging protocol on the end-device and informing consumers about charging performance ·6.4. Policy Option 3 – Unbundled solutions in addition to Option 2 ·6.5. Policy Option 4 – Charging interoperability in addition to Option 1 ·6.6. Policy Option 5 – A common connector in addition to Option 3 7.7. How do the options compare? 8.8. Preferred option ·8.1. Preferred policy option: option 5 with a broad scope ·8.2. REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 9.9. How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? 10.Annex 1: Procedural Information 11.1. Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 12.2. Organisation and timing 13.3. Consultation of the RSB 14.4. Evidence, sources and quality 15.Annex 2: Stakeholders’ consultation 16.1. Introduction

17.2. Inception Impact Assessment (2018-2019) 18.3. Public Consultation (2019) 19.4. Consumer Survey (2019) 20.5. Consumer survey (2021) 21.6. Stakeholder consultation (2020-2021) 22.7. Targeted Interviews 23.8. Expert Group Meeting Consultation (2020-2021) 24.Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 25.1. Practical implications of the initiative 26.2. Summary of costs and benefits 27.Annex 4: Analytical methods 28.1. Environmental Assumptions And Calculations 29.2. Economic Assumptions And Calculations 30.3. Scope of the Impact Assessment And Assumptions 31.4. Other assumptions 32.5. Impacts Of The Different Measures 33.6. Impacts Of The Aggregated Measures 34.Annex 5: State-of-play of Charging Technologies 35.Annex 6: Coherency mapping – related pieces of EU law 36.Glossary

1.Introduction: Political and legal context 1.1.Policy context This Impact Assessment concerns an initiative in support of harmonised charging and unbundling for mobile phones and other similar devices. In particular, this initiative aims to establish a common level of interoperability for chargers of mobile phones and similar devices so to achieve consumer convenience and environmental benefits while further incentivising the unbundling of charger from the radio equipment. For the purposes of this Impact Assessment, a “charger” is intended as the combination of an External Power Supply (EPS) and a cable. The combination of an EPS and a pad is intended to be a “wireless charger” – see Annex 5 for a thorough explanation. In 2009 there were different charging technologies that applied to mobile phones and the level of fragmentation resulted in consumer inconvenience and generation of unnecessary waste. In order to mitigate those problems, the European Commission facilitated a voluntary agreement on the “harmonisation of a charging capability for mobile phones”, resulting in a first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by major phone industries. The signatories agreed to develop a common connector for charging, whose specifications were based on a specific standard, and would allow full compatibility with mobile phones to be placed on the market. For those phones that did not have a micro USB type B interface, an adaptor was allowed. At the international level, the initiative led to an alignment to the MoU almost globally. The implementation of the agreement led to an effective reduction in charging solutions for mobile phones from 30 to only 3. However, the MoU also allowed for the use of proprietary charging interface, and one such solution continued to be used (and still is) by a major mobile phone manufacturer, who never aligned to the common connector mentioned above and therefore failing to allow full interoperability. At the same time, unbundling (i.e. the sale of device without a charger, or only with a cable) had not been achieved to a significant extent, with only a handful of companies offering such a possibility to consumers. The MoU was renewed twice and finally expired in 2014. Since the expiration, the Commission has put much effort to find consensus on a new MoU that would complete the harmonisation of the charging interfaces. As a result, another MoU was proposed/signed in March 2018, which covered only wired charging solutions, and considered (as therein written) “the following cable assemblies to be compliant: ·a cable assembly that is terminated on both ends with a USB Type-C plug; ·a cable assembly that is terminated on one end with a USB Type-C plug and has a vendor-specific connect means (hardwired/captive or custom detachable) on the opposite end; and ·a cable assembly that sources power to a USB Type-C connector from a USB Type-A connector”. Already the preliminary drafts of this MoU were deemed not satisfactory in view of the policy objectives of the Union as they neither resolved the remaining interoperability issues, nor addressed future possible evolutions (wireless or fast charging), nor extended the original scope of the initiative to harmonise charging solutions for other devices similar to mobile phones that would further strengthen the consumer convenience. Also a number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) expressed their disappointment with the MoU , which in their view “neither has a scope that extends beyond smartphones, nor solves the fragmentation in that sector, showing the limitations of voluntary approaches, where vetoes of strong market players influence the outcome and lead to an unsatisfactory approach also in terms of environmental policy objectives”. The European Parliament stressed in its Resolution in January 2020 the need to increase consumer convenience and reduce e-waste by means of actions to harmonise chargers. For the purposes of this Impact Assessment, e-waste is intended as waste from electronic and electrical equipment. Also consumers and their associations, have stressed the need to take action in order to address the remaining charging incompatibility issues (connector and charging communication protocol) and head towards a solution that returns benefits for the environment. As a result, the Commission launched studies in 2019 and 2020 to assess impacts of possible options with the following objectives on the end-device side: (i) remove fragmentation, addressing the consumer convenience, (ii) reduce e-waste, and (iii) be forward looking, monitoring the state of play of future charging technologies (e.g. wireless), aiming to both preventing fragmentation yet without hampering innovation. This initiative on the common charging and unbundling of mobile phones and similar radio equipment, hereinafter referred to as “this initiative”, was included in the Commission Work Programme 2020 for Q3 2020 . This initiative focuses on requirements on end-devices, for which the Radio Equipment Directive apply (see section 1.2). Possible future requirements on EPS would be based on a different complementing initiative, which has been planned (see Annex 6). These two complementary initiatives covering both sides of a cable would contribute to achieving interoperability between the devices and the chargers. Unfortunately, the Covid-19 worldwide pandemic delayed the schedule of this initiative. It was then rescheduled for Q1 2021 in the adjusted Commission Work Programme 2020 and linked to the EU’s priority ‘An economy that works for people’, as it promotes interoperability in support of consumers’ convenience, and to achieving the EU goal of a more sustainable economy. It also aims to contribute to the implementation of the European Green Deal, which includes commitment to mobilise industry for a clean and circular economy, through a ‘sustainable products policy’ that support the circular design of products. It will prioritise reducing and reusing materials before recycling them and will foster new business models and set minimum requirements to prevent environmentally harmful products from being placed on the EU market. Finally, this initiative is also linked to the EU’s priority ‘A Europe Fit for the Digital Age’, under the objective of Digital for consumers. The EU’s digital strategy aims to make this transformation work for people and businesses by giving them more choice, lowering the prices, giving them less exposure to illegal content, and ensuring a better protection of fundamental rights, while helping to achieve its target of a climate-neutral Europe by 2050. The Commission is determined to make this Europe's “Digital Decade”. Europe must now strengthen its digital sovereignty and set standards, rather than following those of others – with a clear focus on data, technology, and infrastructure. Finally it is noted that there is a parallel initiative also on Energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets . This initiative aims to provide a clear and simple indication of the energy efficiency of products at the point of purchase so to make it easier for consumers to give consumers better information regarding product sustainability. It will therefore present additional information to the consumers on aspects that are not covered by this initiative, as for instance a labelling scheme on their energy efficiency. 1.2.Legal context §Mobile phones and other similar devices as well as chargers are subject to the EU product safety legislation which regulate conditions under which they can be lawfully placed on the EU market. The Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU (RED) establishes a regulatory framework for placing radio equipment on the Single Market. It concerns mandatory market access conditions of products (e.g. safety, electromagnetic compatibility, efficient use of radio spectrum, access to emergency services, as well as other essential requirements which apply if related delegated are adopted) and Member States (MS) are required to take corrective measures on non-compliant equipment. The RED, subject to the exclusions specified in its Article 1 (2) and (3), covers electrical/electronic equipment that can use the radio spectrum for communication and/or radio determination purposes. All mobile phones and radio devices such as for example tablets or e-readers fall under the scope of the Directive. It is to be noted that in the current developing market trends, more and more electrical equipment are capable of wireless communications, therefore fall under the scope of the Directive and the pool of devices which can be potentially in scope of this initiative. Recital 12 of the Directive further states that interoperability between radio equipment and accessories such as chargers “simplifies the use of radio equipment and reduces unnecessary waste and costs”, that a “renewed effort to develop a common charger for particular categories or classes of radio equipment is necessary”, and that “mobile phones that are made available on the market should be compatible with a common charger”. In 2014, when the Directive was adopted, the Commission was provided with an empowerment to adopt delegated acts to ensure interoperability of electronic devices with common chargers, Article 3(3)(a), and to ensure a common interface, Article 3(3)(c). That empowerment does not explicitly state that the Commission can impose one interface for ensuring the supply and use of a common charger.

The Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU covers health and safety risks on electrical equipment operating with an input or output voltage of between 50 and 1000 V for alternating current and 75 and 1500 V for direct current, other than the equipment listed in Annex II to that Directive. It allows market access of a wide range of electrical equipment for both consumer and professional usage. Electric power supply (EPS) fall under this piece of legislation as regards safety. Chargers with radio functions, however, fall under the RED. The General Product Safety Directive applies to products not covered by the Union sectorial legislation on safety (e.g. the Low Voltage Directive and the Radio Equipment Directive), if they are intended for consumers or likely under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers – will be regulated by the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC. If a product is covered by Union legislation on safety, the General Product Safety Directive applies any safety aspects and risks for consumers which are not covered by the Union sectorial legislation on safety. It obliges economic operators to make sure any dangerous products present on the market can be traced so they can be removed to avoid any risks to consumers. When cables are detachable from the EPS, they do not meet the provisions of Article 1 of the LVD and so they fall under the General Product Safety Directive. The relationship can be visualised as below. §Table 1 – Parts relationships with EU legislation § §Mobile phone §Cable §Electric power supply (EPS) § § § § §Applicable safety legislation §Radio Equipment Directive §General Product Safety Directive §Low Voltage Directive As regards counterfeiting, the customs authorities of the EU Member States have been enforcing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the basis of the Regulation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. This regulation provides procedural rules for customs authorities to enforce intellectual property rights with regard to goods liable to customs supervision or customs control. It (i) specifies the range of IP Rights and infringements that are covered, (ii) contains provisions for right holders on how to ask protection to customs, (iii) determines procedures for customs to follow in case of identification of goods suspected of infringing an IPR, (iv) provides provisions for cooperation and exchange of information between customs and right holders, (v) includes measures to ensure that the interests of legitimate traders are protected. This initiative is linked to the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) that the Commission adopted in March 2020. The plan presents a set of interrelated initiatives among which the Circular Electronics Initiative (CEI) that refers to regulatory measures on chargers for mobile phones and similar devices and calls for adoption of additional regulatory measures so that mobile phones, tablets and laptops are designed for energy efficiency, durability, reparability, upgradability, maintenance, reuse and recycling. In this regard, the Commission is working on three concurrent initiatives. The first one is the initiative on designing mobile phones and tablets to be sustainable – ecodesign which is foreseen for adoption on Q2 2022. The second one is the initiative on review ecodesign requirements for computers which is foreseen for adoption on Q4 2022. The third one is the initiative on energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets – informing consumers about environmental impact which is foreseen for adoption on Q2 2022. –Table 2 – Eco-design and Energy labelling Initiatives – –Product scope –Timing –Eco-design for mobile phones and tablets (new regulation) –Smartphones and tablets –Q2 2022 –Eco-design for computers (Regulation review) –Computers –Q4 2022 –Energy labelling for mobile phones and tablets (new regulation) –Smartphones and tablets –Q2 2022 Another piece of legislation related to this Initiative is the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Working Plan 2020-2024 (EELWP) as part of the implementation of the Ecodesign Directive and Energy Labelling Regulation. The Inception Impact Assessment has been published. The EELWP contains a specific item being investigated, the “universal External Power Supply (EPS)”, on which work has already started. It therefore complements this Initiative which proposes actions only on the side of mobile phones and similar portable devices and which should be therefore considered when regulating on the EPS side. The supporting study on “universal EPS” follow the scope defined in the Regulation on ecodesign requirements for external power supplies i.e., electric and electronic devices with power requirements up to 100 Watts having potential to be charged by one common power adapter with the industry specifications by USB-IF . Examples of such products are: ear pods, rechargeable battery chargers, shavers, razors, alarm clocks, radio and loudspeakers, phones and tablets, LED stripes and luminaries, vacuum cleaners, cordless tools, computers (including desktop), monitors, televisions, and many more. The “universal EPS” study investigated the environmental benefits of having one common EPS and touch up on possible environmental impacts of such requirement. The findings of this study will lead to a revision of the EPS regulation foreseen in 2022. In fact, the supporting study recommended “to include the product group in the Working Plan for further assessments including refining the scope and developing implementing measures. There is a reasonable amount of energy savings related to resource efficiency and it is an area of interests for EU citizens who experience EPSs kept in stock but without any use”. The revision of the EPS regulation will among others concentrate on promoting interoperability in terms of charging performance of charger with standardized charging protocol (USB PD) and ensure citizens have enough information as to make informed choices when they decide to buy a new charger which will give an intelligible and immediate tool to understand the performance of the charger used with a device when they use a universal external power supply. One of the preconditions to achieve a “universal charger” is a minimum ground on the performance that both the end-device and EPS guarantee. The combination of this initiative and the revision of the EPS regulation will ensure, in a complementary manner, that this minimum performance is met and that consistent information is given to the consumers. In particular: In order to charge in an optimum manner, the device and the charger should be interoperable, e.g. preventing unjustified limitations of the maximum delivered power and supporting at least the same connector. The end-device maximum accepted power will be displayed and the charger’s capacity/power will be included in the labelling under the EPSs initiative; Fast charging needs to be supported at both the end device and the EPS side. For this reason, interoperability needs be ensured and a parallel strand of work on EPS will make it possible to inform users appropriately. Therefore, this initiative, is fully complementary to the planned one on “universal EPS” by ensuring interoperability on both sides of the cable. The interoperability on the device end will be achieved by this initiative. In a complementary manner, the interoperability on the EPS will be achieved by the initiative on the universal power supply. Although adoption of these initiative has a different timetable in the Commission planning, the different procedures for adoption will make them applicable approximately at the same time, so to maximise the coherence and the effectiveness of the EU action. Another objective of the CEI in close relation with the analysis of the environmental impacts of this initiative, is the call for improving the collection and treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment . The Commission is exploring options for an EU-wide take back scheme to return or sell back old mobile phones, tablets and chargers. The results of the study will be published in Q2 2021 (within the CEI communication), which will provide the hooks for any potential further action under the Directive on waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) . Finally, there is an ongoing study for a possible introduction of a product passport to increase the information on product characteristics along the value chain and to consumers and facilitate product repair, upgrading, component recovery and reuse, and ultimately recycling as part of the Sustainable Product Initiative (SPI) Impact Assessment. As of now, the SPI is planned in the CWP for adoption in Q4 2021. 2.Problem definition 2.1.What are the problems? A study carried out after the adoption of the RED in 2014 found that the MoU signed in 2009 was effective at harmonising charging solutions and improving consumer convenience. However, full harmonisation of the charging solutions had not been achieved. In addition, the study also recognised that unbundling had not been achieved to any significant extent, with only a handful of companies in Europe offering the possibility to consumers to buy a phone without the charger, hence limiting the expected benefits for the environment. In more general terms, two main problems drive this initiative: the first one is the consumer convenience, as repeatedly called by the European Parliament and the Consumers’ associations (see section 1.1.1), the second is the environmental benefits, as outlined in two further commissioned studies of 2019 and 2021. As regards an explanation of the terminology used in this Impact Assessment and a more detailed report on the state-of-play of the wired and wireless charging solutions for the equipment in scope of this initiative, we refer to Figure 1 and Annex 5. That Annex and the glossary also contains a technical description of certain terms which are used in the next Sections. The problems can be clustered as follows: ·Figure 1 – Description of elements for the charge · ·

In a first instance, there is a consumer inconvenience. Some of the sold devices use proprietary connectors and/or charging protocols that are not always interoperable with other chargers, or that cannot charge at the same speed when using a charger from another brand. This is aggravated by the fragmentation in terms of connectors used, with devices using USB Type-C, USB micro-B and proprietary ones. And it is also aggravated by fragmentation of performance of the charging solutions as charger give different charging speed depending on the communication protocol used. The second part of the problem is that there are more chargers in the market than what consumers realistically need or want. Most consumers already have one or more suitable chargers, so do not always need a new one with each phone. However, with some recent exceptions on new models, manufacturers continue selling chargers along with phones by default. This generates unnecessary use of raw materials, Green House Gasses (GHG) emissions and e-waste. The following two sections explain the problems with more granularity. 2.1.1.Consumer matters A number of issues around the current fragmentation of mobile phone chargers and, more broadly, of chargers for different electronic devices were raised by the consumers and their associations participating to the Public Consultation and in the consumer surveys (see Annex 2). The sources of consumer inconvenience identified via the surveys can be divided into four issues: (i) inability to charge certain devices (as fast) with certain chargers; (ii) too many chargers taking up place at home; (iii) no access to a compatible charger; and (iv) confusion about which charger works with what device. In more detail, participants in the consumer survey were asked whether they had experienced any problems when using a mobile phone charger in the 24 months prior to the survey. 84% of respondents reported having experienced at least one of the different types of problems. The most commonly cited problems can be clustered as: redundancy of chargers, lack of interoperability, lack of information, safety issues. These findings from the surveys of consumers generally point to lack of interoperability as the main cause of consumers’ inconvenience. This lack of interoperability consists of the following elements: absence of a common connector, inability to charge certain devices as fast with certain chargers and the lack of information provided to consumer as regard the charging performance of their device with certain chargers. ·Interoperability at the device end The initial MoU partially resolved the issue of fragmentation of the interfaces (i.e. type of connectors used in a device to connect a charging cable), reducing the original number of charging solutions for phones from 30 to only 3. However, both the European Parliament and the consumer associations stress that the incomplete harmonisation of the device interface is still inconvenient for consumers (see section 1 and annex 2). The estimates show that there are around 20% of smartphones, 27% of tablets, 11% of handheld videogame consoles, and 100% of wired smartwatches with proprietary connector and de facto, this ratio is aligned with the percentages of cables ending with a proprietary connector (see section 2.3). Moreover, about 39% of mobile phones, particularly the cheapest ones, still use the micro USB type-B connector. Having different chargers for different electronic devices, in fact, was indicated as a source of confusion, especially for older people or people affected by disabilities. 73% of EU citizens believed that users of different electronic devices need to have multiple chargers which occupy space and may lead to confusion to be a serious problem, while 26% of respondents described this as a minor problem. Only 1% of did not consider it a problem. In addition, the charging interfaces that are currently found in mobile phones can be used not only for delivering power to the battery, but also to communicate with accessories and certain peripherals. When specific manufacturers do not include a common interface in their products, there is a risk of locking the consumer into ecosystems of accessories or peripherals, which may discourage the migration to different brands and may result in more e-waste when a consumer decides to do so. Additionally, market developments for tablets and laptops already head towards the use of USB type C connector, also for those manufacturers who used proprietary connectors. Considering that proprietary interfaces have higher retail prices than non-proprietary (USB types), the lack of a common interface has an effect on the price paid by those consumers for accessories (and also incite consumer to buy counterfeit products). The progressive introduction of the wireless charger can possibly be a source of additional fragmentation. As described in Annex 5, different pads already exist and the lack of interoperability can be the start of a new fragmentation of the market. ·Interoperability in relation to charging performance There is quite a high degree of interoperability of chargers. It is also the case as regard to fast charging, since most manufacturers implement the USB Power Delivery (PD) technology as a charging protocol (i.e. in simple terms the communication rules and signals for the device to communicate with a charger). However, some manufacturers (see Annex 5 for details) use proprietary charging protocols that are either not interoperable or when connected to non-proprietary chargers reduce the charging speed. The survey conducted for the related study , found that most of consumers that bought a separate EPS did not encounter any problems, and similarly for those who bought a cable separately (71% and 70% respectively). However, those that experienced problems indicated issues such as reduced charging speed (16% for EPS and 15% for the cable), or that the new charger component cannot charge the mobile phone (8% for the EPS and 6% for the cable). It should be clarified that, at least for small products such as smartphones or tablets, cables do not have any impact on the charging performance if a cable with suitable connectors on both sides is used to charge a phone. The targeted interviews have also highlighted that the power may be limited on purpose in those cases where a phone using a proprietary charging protocol is charged with an EPS not implementing that specific fast charging protocol, in order to ensure safety. The result can be a reduction of the charging performance, e.g. the charging process will not deliver the theoretical peak power because either the EPS or the mobile phone limit it. It was also underlined how the absence of clear labelling may make it hard to identify the differences among chargers, or to understand whether a charger is suitable for a given device. Clearer labelling was suggested. ·Interoperability with other portable devices Mobile phones’ peak charging power typically ranges between 5W and 18W if they include USB PD technology or other fast charging solutions. EPSs delivering power are becoming more and more available on the market as the USB PD protocol can support, in the current version, up to 100W. Devices with similar charging power characteristics to mobile phones include, for instance, e-readers, tablets, wearables and cameras. They do not include laptops as laptops may require more power, which poses technical challenges when it comes to sharing the EPS with a mobile phone, i.e. these chargers can charge a laptop, but only very slowly (e.g. overnight) and may not provide sufficient power to fully compensate the energy depleting the battery.. However an EPS incorporating USB PD protocol and capable of delivering higher power than needed by the device, can safely power any device supporting the suitable fast-charging protocol, which is USB-PD. Sales of those other small portable devices, having similar charging characteristics to phones, (i.e. tablets, e-readers, hearables, digital cameras, sport cameras, handheld videogame consoles) can be estimated at approximately 260 million devices in the EU27 annually. Adoption of a standardised interface for these devices appears to be possible. However, certain devices which have to meet specific conditions (e.g. to be water proof or to fit a limited space in the product) would have to be excluded. As a result, the scope of this initiative and the issue of interoperability may concern approximately 390 million devices sold annually in the EU27 (Annex 5 provides further details on the typology of other devices and their charging needs). Nearly all the consumer associations consulted stressed that the presence of different types of connectors and chargers and fast charging incompatibilities is inconvenient for portable device users. ·Safety issues and counterfeit chargers Based on the consumer survey, it is assumed that 5-10% of all EPSs bought separately in the EU, and approximately 10-15% of cables, are counterfeit. As regards product safety issues, 1% of survey respondents who had bought a non-bundled EPS or cable in the last 24 months reported it had caused safety issues (e.g. electrical shock, fire…), while 3% reported it had damaged their mobile phone. 5% of those who had bought an EPS, and 7% of those who had bought a cable, reported that it broke / become unusable shortly after it was bought. Existence of such risks has been documented by an analysis of the number of risk alerts for mobile phone chargers in the RAPEX and ICSMS systems. Overall, the RAPEX and ICSMS data, supported by feedback from authorities, suggest that there are problems with chargers and that these are increasing, although data in 2017-2018 does not confirm a clear trend . There appears to be a substantial market for counterfeit EPS and cables, which bring significant losses to intellectual property rights (IPR) holders, and could also constitute serious safety threats to users, and negatively impact the environment. According to data on the EU customs enforcement of IPR, the category ‘parts and technical accessories for mobile phones’ (including chargers) occupied the 8th place in the ranking of top categories of detained articles, with almost 1.1 million of articles in 2020 , which is comparable to the previous years, for a total value of approximately 45 M €. ·Bundling vs unbundling The number of chargers shipped/sold is higher than consumers need. Most of devices, including mobile phones, are sold bundled with a charger in the box. As of October 2020, two major manufacturers of mobile phones, accounting for roughly 50% of the market share , announced the removal of the EPS (and other accessories) from the retail box of certain (not all) new models, explaining that the aim is “further reducing carbon emissions and avoiding the mining and use of precious materials, which enables smaller and lighter packaging, and allows for 70 percent more boxes to be shipped on a pallet” or “minimise the impact that products have on the environment” in order to support users in making “sustainable choices in their daily lives to promote better recycling habits” . Other three manufacturers have followed thereafter, on new models. However, certain manufacturers are likely not to introduce unbundling voluntary, as per the interviews. Therefore, the number of chargers on the market will continue to exceed the number of chargers that consumers would buy in a well-functioning market, thus leaving untapped the full potential to reduce environmental impacts (see section 2.1.2 below). A mapping exercise has shown that unbundling of the EPS from the device is already common in certain categories of products, such as low-power using hearables, e-readers, and portable speakers, whilst it is rare for devices such as digital cameras, portable videogame consoles and tablets requiring certain higher power levels. As regards the cable assembly, a suitable one is almost always provided in the box. In some cases, manufacturers fear to lose market shares if they unbundle. In turn certain consumers, being unaware of the interoperability, may keep preferring bundled solutions, originating a vicious cycle.

In a consumer panel survey conducted for the related study and focusing on unbundling of chargers, 82% of consumers indicated that they consider finding an EPS in the box with a new mobile phone very important or important, whilst an even larger share of consumers, 89%, considered that it was very important or important that a cable was supplied in the package with a new phone. The consumer preferences are clearly not homogenous in respect to unbundling. They are however partially consequence of still existing issues of interoperability, the lack of correct information on suitable chargers among the laypersons, and the relatively novelty of standards supporting possibly universal chargers. When provided with information on environmental impacts, interoperability, charging performance and product safety risks had been provided, these proportions decreased by around 10% points resulting in around three quarters of respondents still maintained it was very important or important for them that EPS and cable are provided with the phone. Additionally, the stakeholder survey showed that the majority of stakeholders request that all mobile phones are interoperable with any EPS (75% see figure 2.10 in Annex 2). A specific matter concerning unbundling is the retail price of devices and chargers. In the interviews, manufacturers announced that they would offer EPS out of the box at a reduced price if unbundling becomes mandatory. This appears to be confirmed by the manufacturers who have started to unbundle, who commented that they have reduced the price of their stand-alone EPS . 2.1.2.Environmental aspects It is estimated that in 2019, 266 million mobile phones were sold in Europe . As a conservative mere ratio of the population, in the EU27 approximately 160 million mobile phones were sold in that year. Adding more than 260 million portable devices described in the previous section, there were therefore approximately 420 million portable electronic devices sold annually in the EU. When each of them are dispatched with a charger, the old ones either become unused or are disposed of. In the EU27 it can be estimated that approximately 20 Kg of e-waste per capita were produced in 2019 , with a growing trend at global level . Of these, it is estimated that chargers represent 0.3% of the total e-waste (11.000 tonnes of e-waste annually) . As regards the standalone markets, EPS and cables for tablets, earbuds, headphones and cameras are estimated to account for less than 20% of the stock of mobile phone EPS and cables (including those purchased on their own). The consumer panel survey suggests that the average consumer owns around three mobile phone chargers, of which they use two on a regular basis. A little under half of consumers only use a single charger, while the remainder use two or more. Survey respondents also reported using an average of two chargers which implies that on average, one changer is left unused. There was significant variance in this data, with a few respondents reporting to own as many as 25 chargers. Not having the choice not to buy the charger implies that consumers have more chargers than they need. The results of the consumer survey show that chargers taking up space at home or at work was indicated as an issue by 44% of respondents . Accumulating chargers at home was the single most common way of dealing with old chargers (49% of cases). Certain manufacturers have already highlighted the positive impact on reducing emissions that unbundling has due to the use of fewer materials for the packaging and higher efficiency in the transport of the products. However, other stakeholders have argued that unbundling will lead to a higher amount of packaging material and associated emissions (as users will potentially buy separately an EPS and cable). Furthermore, a retail association during an interview indicated that while the packaging of phones is normally cardboard, when EPS are sold separately, they are packaged in plastic. 2.2.What are the problem drivers? The drivers are different and can be clustered as showed below. At the end of the section, a problem tree is produced. ·Lack of commitment to meet the policy objectives of the Union The MoU 2009 resulted in convergence towards a common external power supply (EPS) and USB micro-B connectors at the device end of mobile phones. The most notable exception was one single manufacturer, continuing to use proprietary connectors (from 2012). Since the expiry of the MoU in 2014, several technological innovations in relation to charging technologies, EPS, and connectors have occurred . The new MoU on wired chargers for smartphones proposed by the industry in March 2018 was found not to align with the EU’s harmonisation objectives . A comparison of the MoU 2009 and the MoU 2018 shows that little has been done to promote the use of a “universal charger”, so to maximise consumer convenience and environmental benefits. On the contrary, the MoU 2018 does not provide sufficient reassurance that work is ongoing to resolve the observed fragmentation . As a result, not only the target of having one single connector has not been achieved, but also progressive fragmentation has been observed in time, by means of proprietary features and solutions concerning the technical protocols and performance. The general and political “perception” is therefore that this convergence to a “universal charger” and its wide adoption has been a missed opportunity. ·Proprietary charging solutions for commercial benefits In some cases, interoperability of chargers is prevented by proprietary protocols in the EPS, which are not compatible with the most common standard. Those protocols do not allow a correct communication between the source (the EPS) and the device being charged. In other cases, interoperability is prevented by specific proprietary connectors on the end-device. There are different economic aspects linked to these choices. For instance, the selling prices of specific accessories of brands using proprietary connectors is higher than the average . Some industry representatives interviewed claim that their proprietary fast charging solutions are more energy-efficient than USB PD . Interviewees also claim that proprietary solutions are safe (apply several levels of control to ensure the temperature stays low), charge phones quickly, and the production cost is lower than if they used USB PD. These manufacturers generally include in the box EPS and cables that provide high power to allow the fast charge advertised . ·Some consumers do not know most chargers are interoperable Chargers and mobile phones can support different power levels and hence allow for a degree of interoperability, if programmed according to existing standards, without proprietary changes . In the consumer survey , less than half of respondents (45%) were fully aware that the vast majority of chargers from all major mobile phone manufacturers are interoperable, i.e. can be used to charge all modern phones irrespective of the brand. The current level of interoperability however don’t guarantee the same fast charging performance as there are proprietary charging communication protocol that do not allow interoperability. The rest of respondents were either partly aware (36%) or did not know it (19%). Similarly, in the consumer survey conducted for another study , confusion over which charger to use for different mobile phones was a problem that had been experienced by 30% of respondents. For 1% it happened almost every day, for 5% on numerous occasions, for 12% a few times, and for 13% once or twice. When needing to charge their phone, 19% of respondents reported having experienced problems once or twice because all other chargers were incompatible, 15% had this problem on a few occasions, 3% on numerous occasions and less than 1% almost daily. 63% did not face problems relative to interoperability with other chargers than the one from the same brand as the phones. Actually consumers, even those willing to reuse their chargers in the assumption that the interface is the same, struggle to understand the performance of already-owned chargers in charging new mobile phones . The consumers’ perception is therefore that no sufficient information is provided on the charging capabilities of the equipment. In turn, this makes it very difficult to ascertain the extent to which an old charger can meet the charging needs of new devices. The presence in the retail box of chargers is therefore perceived as the sole “best-match” to charge the device, making old chargers redundant and therefore disposed or dismissed. Clearer labelling was suggested by consumer associations as a measure to distinguish chargers with different charging features (e.g. by defining a limited number of types of chargers based on their power output and/or specifications, and labelling them accordingly). ·Some consumers find it convenient to get a charger with each phone In the consumer survey conducted for this study, 82% of consumers indicated that they consider finding an EPS in the box with a new mobile phone very important or important, whilst an even larger share of consumers, 89%, considered that it was very important or important that a cable was supplied along with a new phone. Although these proportions decreased by around 10 percentage points after information on environmental impacts, interoperability, charging performance and product safety risks had been provided, around three quarters of respondents still maintained it was very important or important for them that EPS and cable are provided with the phone. Among the consumers who found it important to have either an EPS and/or cable in the box, almost half (46%) indicated that it is because of habit, i.e. they are used to finding a complete product in the box. Other relevant factors are: safety (50%), performance (48%), and convenience (38%). However, the survey also shows that a majority of respondents (61%) were supportive of the idea that all mobile phone manufacturers / distributors should give customers the option of purchasing (or not) a new EPS and/or cable with new phones. ·Lack of awareness of the environmental impact As explained above, until last year, nearly all mobile phones sold in the EU market were bundled with an EPS and cable and the scenario changed as of October 2020. As per the interviews, other manufacturers are considering the unbundling at the moment, but those with proprietary charging technologies appear less keen, as they consider their high charging performance an added value. As regards the cable, this is almost always provided in the box.

Consumers appear to be less aware of the environmental impacts of chargers. In the consumer survey, less than a third of respondents (29%) knew that chargers’ production requires raw materials and generates CO2 emissions, and when chargers are no longer used, they generate electronic waste. 38% of respondents partly knew this, and 33% did not know it. Knowing this information changed slightly the extent to which they think having a charger in the box is important. The number of respondents who thought it is important to have an EPS decreased from 82% to 71%, and those who thought it is important to have a cable decreased from 89% to 78% of respondents. A minority of consumers (6%), however, indicated that it is not important for them to have an EPS in the box, and that this is because of sustainability reasons. ·Concerns on consumers’ reactions In interviews , manufacturers have expressed their concern about consumers’ reactions if they stop selling chargers with their devices. Two manufacturers informed that they had previously tried unbundling schemes in the past. One camera manufacturer noted that they started selling their cameras without the EPS and received very negative feedback from consumers. A phone manufacturer also noted that they piloted an unbundling scheme in Russia (in this case, the phones were sold without EPS or cable), but most consumers chose to buy the charger when acquiring a new phone. The lack of effectiveness in the scheme also meant that the environmental benefits they were expecting to achieve were not realised. Figure 2 shows the problem tree.



·Figure 2 - Problem tree Source: Impact assessment study on Unbundling of mobile phones and similar electronic devices (2021) 2.3.How will the problem evolve? In the absence of action to promote a common charging solution, fragmentation is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. As regards the wired chargers, following the MoU of 2018, the manufacturers will not eventually converge to a common solution for connectors and would not phase out existing proprietary connectors, as that MoU also allowed to keep the micro USB type-B interface and proprietary interfaces. As regards the old common connectors (micro USB type-B), Figure 5.4 of Annex 5 and a projection of an industry study , identify that as of 2024 their phase-out will be de facto completed. However the remaining proprietary solution on phone (on other products) will stay. In addition, other manufacturers may wish to introduce in the future new proprietary solutions (both for phones and other devices), if this is not addressed. The fact that, despite the voluntary approach didn’t lead to one single solution, the regulators didn’t act, may be even an incentive for other manufacturers to switch to proprietary solutions. Whilst fragmentation is being observed also in the uptake of the wireless charger, with different protocols, coils, interfaces and technologies being developed , there are efforts to converge to a common solution or interoperability. Since wireless charging enabled phones were first introduced, they have seen widespread adoption. Between 2016 and 2018, their overall sales increased six fold, rising to around 44 million, or around 28% of overall sales in 2018 . The largest share of wireless enabled phones sold throughout 2016-2018 were from one manufacturer only. More recent observations of the market were in line with this effort to limit the fragmentation . In view of the recently launched voluntary unbundling initiatives by certain manufacturers, the specific study estimates that 25% of phones will be sold without an EPS in the box, and that this proportion will increase to 48% by 2023, and more slowly thereafter, to 54% by 2030. But, in light of the experience with the implementation of the MoU, voluntary initiatives on the matter may not be followed by all active manufacturers in the field. Based on the results of the consumer survey, it is estimated that 57% of consumers who purchase an unbundled new phone will choose to purchase one EPS along with the phone. However, since these consumers will be able to choose which kind of EPS they acquire, demand for stand-alone EPS bought at other times (not along with a new phone) will decrease, by an estimated 31%. The net effect of these two trends is that, for every phone sold without an EPS, it is assumed that an additional 0.39 stand-alone EPS will be bought. In other words, every 100 phones sold without an EPS the total number of bought EPS is reduced by 61 units. In 2021, on the EPS side, there were two main non-proprietary technologies on the market, with respectively 70% (USB Type A) and 30% (USB Type C) of the share . As a transition is in place, this situation is expected to reverse by 2030. However, proprietary connectors will remain 22% of the total. With respect to EPS, the trend towards more powerful (and faster) EPS is expected to increase in future, with EPS providing less than 7.5W reducing to 7% by 2030. As regards environmental impacts, high-power quality chargers (both cables and EPS) are typically designed to last longer than cheap and low-power chargers . In the short-medium term, the consumption of materials for the production of chargers will increase, as the fast chargers are heavier (see Annex 5). In this timeframe, an unnecessary proliferation of chargers will lead to consuming more resources. In the medium-long term, new technologies (such as GaN, Gallium Nitride) will reduce part of the weight and are expected to increase the durability of the chargers available in the market, as indicated during the interviews . In this scenario, the absence of a common interface and minimum charging performance and the progress of fragmentation risk to reduce the reuse of these devices within their lifetime. The material use is estimated to increase from 14 584 tonnes in 2017 to 20 969 tonnes in 2030. From 2017-2024 there is a steady increase in the material used. This is driven by the switch to heavier EPS and more robust and durable cables. The increase in material used slows in 2023 and 2024 (4% and 2% increase, respectively). This is then followed by an overall stabilisation of the material used until 2026, after which there is an annual decline of 1-2% driven by increased adoption of lighter and smaller EPS introducing new components (such as GaN). For context, the baseline annual average material use (based on 2024-2030) of 21 829 tonnes represents a negligible proportion (0.0005%) of the 4.5 million ktonnes (kt) of total material used in the EU in 2018. It also equates to around 2.6% of the weight of small household appliances put on the market in the EU in 2018, and so within this category is a small but non-negligible contributor. Without action, the e-waste is expected to increase from 12 574 tonnes in 2018 to 20 177 tonnes in 2030 despite the decline in the number of EPS and cables added to the stock of chargers each year as mobile phone sales decline and unbundling increases. From 2024 onwards, the annual increase in e-waste slows but overall, the amount of e-waste generated increases gradually every year, as changes in material use translate to changes in e-waste. The baseline annual e-waste generated in 2023 of 16 616 tonnes represents approximately 5.4% of the 353 172 tonnes of total small household appliances collected from households equipment in 2017. The model assumes an increase in the recycling rates of plastics and metals. These recycling rates result in an average increase of 31% of the e-waste collected, and 43% of the e-waste recovered for recycling between 2024 and 2030 compared to 2024. Table 3 - Modelled recycling rates for EPS and cables (2015-2030) Disposal method 2015 2020 2025 2030 Disposed to recycling 56% 69% 76% 84% Incorrectly disposed (untreated waste) 44% 31% 24% 16% Source: Impact assessment study on Unbundling of mobile phones and similar electronic devices (2021) The GHG emissions increase from 2017-2023 despite the trend for e-waste. This is driven by the switch to faster, more powerful EPS (7.5W and above) and the move to USB Type-C cables, both of which are heavier than the previously more common low (<7.5W) power EPS and USB Micro-B cables. The average weight of an EPS + cable combination is modelled to increase by 70% from 57g to 97g between 2017 and 2023. The trend in weight increase per charger combination stabilises from 2024 onwards and even declines a little as lighter EPS, e.g. using GaN, become more common. These effects lead to the observed decline in baseline GHG emissions of 7% between 2023 and 2030. Baseline annual GHG emissions in 2023 of 1 142 ktCO2e represent approximately 0.03% of EU GHG emissions in 2018. With respect to other electronic devices, the trend is as in the following table . This confirms that the environmental problem is present also in different devices than mobile phones. Overall, other devices are smaller markets than for smartphones. The market of mobile phone chargers is much larger than any other market of portable devices (see the Table below). However, there is already quite some inconvenience coming from the fragmentation of performances and interfaces for these devices. Together with the high rate of unbundling, the consumer inconvenience for these devices can be significant.

Table 4 – Trends for other devices Device Sales trend (thousand units) Fragmentation (interfaces and performance) Unbundling impact Considerations Tablets Decreasing 22 350 (in 2019) High High Closest device to smartphones in terms of battery and charging characteristics Cameras Decreasing 5 428 (in 2019) High High High potential to reduce fragmentation and likely high impact of unbundling Earbuds and headphones Increasing 23 612 (in 2019) High Medium Very fragmented market (type of connector) and growing market. All products analysed include a cable and half of them include also an EPS. Some earbuds are charged via wireless in their box, and the box connects to an EPS via a cable (common or proprietary). Hand-held video game consoles Constant 18 598 (in 2018) Low High Consoles share cable and EPS with smartphones. All devices analysed in the mapping are sold with cable and EPS. Portable speakers Increasing 1 639 (in 2020) Medium Low Most of the devices use USB technologies and approximately 20% are sold with an EPS. The trend towards USB-C and towards de-coupling has been confirmed in interviews with manufacturers. E-readers Constant 11 838 (in 2020) Low Low EPS typically included in the box and connectors already standardised Smartwatches and fitness trackers Constant 7 658 (in 2020) High Low Most devices are charged via wireless. These wearables are often designed to be water resistant and support hard conditions, therefore USB connectors may not offer the best solution. Source: Impact assessment study on Unbundling of mobile phones and similar electronic devices (2021) 2.4.Impact of COVID-19 Different statistics for 2020 show that the COVID situation has impacted by 5%-10% on the sales of mobile phones and other electrical equipment. However, the estimates foresee a full recovery in 2021 or 2022 the latest, with a growing trend as in the years pre-crisis. For the purposes of the environmental benefits, is therefore assumed that the COVID-19 situation will not impact the overall findings and policy options. On the contrary, as regards the consumer convenience, the Economic and Budgetary Outlook for the European Union 2021 notes that “despite being protected by government measures, aggregate labour income is set to decrease in 2020 as many companies defer decisions about employing new staff, or reduce working hours or staff numbers. Some segments of the workforce are likely to be affected more than others, with the incomes of lower-wage earners and younger cohorts showing greater vulnerability to downturns”. This is confirmed also by Eurostat , which also registered a rise to the unemployment rate . All this makes consumers more vulnerable and therefore the effects of COVID-19 require to pay specific attention to the consumer convenience (e.g. costs, interoperability or reusability) which has been described in section 2.1.1. 3.Why should the EU act? 3.1.Legal basis The legal basis for this initiative is the RED, which is based on Article 114 of the TFEU. The way in which the RED will be used in support of the current initiative is described in section 8.1, with respect to the preferred policy option. As the RED does not cover EPS, this initiative focuses on the end-device, not their chargers or chargers’ components. 3.2.Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action EU intervention in this area is a common interest for consumers and the environment. As outlined above, the EU needs to make sure that products placed on the EU market support the consumer convenience and are rationalised so to allow the reduction of e-waste, promoting the objectives of a circular economy. The technology for chargers is available and sufficiently flexible for charging multiple categories of equipment. Harmonisation of charging solutions has to be developed in a manner that supports the policy objectives of the Union in terms of circular economy and consumers’ convenience. The lack of interoperability, unjustified difference in performance and the related consumers’ inconvenience affect an effective and efficient functioning of the internal market, where the absence of harmonisation may lead to substantial differences between the Member States' laws, regulations, administrative provisions or practices. Without EU action, the trend (see section 2.3) is that fragmentation of connectors, EPS and performance will persist. The size of the internal market in recharging mobile phones and similar devices and the fragmentation of different chargers on the Union market call for stronger action at Union rather than national level to achieve the smooth functioning of the internal market. It is therefore necessary to ensure that citizens do not suffer an unjustified level of fragmentation when charging certain categories of radio equipment and that no waste is produced by unnecessary sales. A basis for adapting harmonisation in this area with any new technology, relating to wired or wireless charging, shall also be provided. 3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action An EU action will guarantee that the objectives of consumer convenience and WEEE reduction apply at the Union level. It will also prevent manufacturers to be subject to different possible national initiatives that aim to achieve the same objectives in a non-harmonised manner and would lead to obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU. It would ensure that sufficient information is provided to consumers. Such measures must, therefore, have the same content throughout the EU. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, it is thus appropriate for the measure in question to be adopted at EU level. EU action will also allow enforcing measures when products are placed on the market according to the principles laid down in the Internal Market legislation of the Union. MS do not have a legislative tool to recall or to impose corrective measures to the equipment that does not facilitate the consumer convenience or creates excessive e-waste. The status quo has likewise implicit quantifiable and non-quantifiable impacts which are expected to persist, as a minimum, despite the long-standing request to reduce the fragmentation in the sector. A response is therefore needed. A regulatory action at the EU level will consequently fit a coherent implementation of the EU law, supporting the development of the Internal and Digital Single Markets and providing legal certainty for both manufacturers and consumers. An EU regulatory action will also apply to all manufacturers in a non-discriminatory way, thus establishing a level-playing field on the EU market for the equipment in scope, harmonising the requirements that are to be demonstrated in the Union for market access. Setting specific requirements for interoperability, i.e. charging performance and interfaces, will make it easier to assess the quality of chargers on the market, and hence. In turn, this will provide Market Surveillance Authorities with precise benchmarks to ascertain the correct functioning of chargers and therefore contribute to a better implementation of the internal market. 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives The general objectives is to increase consumer convenience and achieve environmental benefits through an initiative concerning a common charging and unbundling for mobile phones and other portable devices which have similar charging needs. 4.2.Specific objectives The general objectives in the previous section will be achieved through the following specific objectives which aim to reduce the impact of the problems described in section 2: 1.In a first instance the aim is to promote interoperability reducing the fragmentation in terms of end-device connector of mobile phones and other portable devices; 2.In a second instance, the aim is to promote interoperability in terms of charging performance of devices, including fast charging; 3.In a third instance, ensure citizens have enough information as to make informed choices when they decide to buy a new device. Consumers shall be given clear, intelligible and immediate tool to understand the performance of the electronic devices and which charging accessories shall be used to achieve the optimal performance. This point will be complemented by a parallel initiative on common EPS (see section 1.1.2) under a different legal basis ; 4.Furthermore, provide consumers with a choice as to whether they want to acquire a new charger when they purchase electronic devices; 5.Finally, the pool of devices in scope of the initiative is to be extended to the maximum possible, in the respect of the charging requirements, technologies and uses. The devices analysed for a possible inclusion are radio devices with similar charging characteristics than mobile phones, as in section 5. The use of a common interface, supported by interoperability as to the charging performance, adequate information to the users and offer of unbundled solutions will allow consumers to be in a position to assess on a more solid ground whether they need a new charger. This in turn will allow to reduce unnecessary purchases and reduce the environmental impact of chargers, which will even be more effective by extending the pool of devices in scope of this initiative. Therefore the attainment of the specific objectives on consumer convenience are linked to the environmental specific objective of reducing e-waste. Finally, the complementary of the present initiative with the up-next initiative under eco-design towards a universal external power supply will allow to achieve the ultimate goal of the “common charger”. 5.What are the available policy options? The different policy options include a status quo option, non-regulatory and regulatory options. The latter ones have been built on the hypothesis of an ad-hoc amendment of the RED and taking into account parallel initiatives on EPS, which are planned for next year (see section 1 and Annex 5). The assessment of policy options has taken into consideration the extent to which the different policy options could achieve the policy and regulatory objectives set out above and in the Commission’s inception impact assessment . Different consultations of the Expert Group on Radio Equipment took place to verify the extent to which the policy options could respond to the stakeholders’ and the Member States expectations. The policy options have been built as a function of the different possible measures presented in the following points, each of them tackling different specific objectives. They have been packaged according to the level of ambition of the EU action: 1.Harmonisation of the end-device interface: this has been the objective of the MoUs of 2009 and 2018. The aim of this measure is to ensure a degree of interoperability requiring mobile phones and/or other devices to have a common interface. The aim is to have the most common solution used on the market (USB Type C – see Annex 5) harmonised across all devices in scope. · 2.Interoperability in terms of charging performance: supporting interoperability with USB PD communication protocol by the device: this can be left to the market (no action) or to a mandatory measure, ensuring that appropriate protocol and performance (see Annex 5) are implemented in all devices, in a proportionate manner; · 3.Making unbundled solutions available on the market: this measure aims to minimise the sale of EPS together with the devices, favouring the re-use of existing chargers, and minimising the need to buy new chargers. It can be implemented in two ways, i.e. either placing on the market only unbundled solutions or placing on the market at least unbundled solutions (a manufacturer could offer both). It can be mandated or left to a market approach (no action); · 4.Informing consumers about charging performance: this measure aims to inform consumers on the charging capabilities of the devices they intend to buy, so that they can understand whether they can re-use their old charger and to which extent. It will allow consumers to compare the charging performance of the device with the EPS and match them as appropriate. To do so, the following information should be displayed: ·The maximum power that the device can take will be indicated on the device. The standard allows for downward compatibility, i.e. devices supporting higher power can also operate at lower powers.

·The support of the common fast charging communication protocol. The same requirements will have to be displayed on the EPS (which for numerous of them it’s already the case), this will be implemented through the revision of the EPS regulation. This is considered to be a flanking measure to the second measure and are merged because closely linked to each other (see also section 5.3); 5.An additional dimension is the scope of the initiative: the equipment in scope of the options can be narrow (mobile phones only) or broad (certain devices with charging characteristics which are comparable to a mobile phone). The issue of scope could be considered as a sub-option of all the possible policy options. How these measures are combined into policy options is reported in Section 5.2. The safety of chargers, the reduction of counterfeit products and the promotion of quality and durable products will not be directly supported by this initiative. The planned initiatives on Eco-designs and common EPS (see section 1.1.1) will complement to achieve quality and durable products. In terms of safety, the pending evaluation of the Low Voltage Directive showed that the rules concerning safety of EPS are fit for purpose. There are a number of recent and upcoming initiatives related to market surveillance and improved enforcement of IPR rules that should have a positive impact on the safety of chargers and reduction of counterfeit chargers on the market. In particular, the Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance and compliance of products supports fairer internal market for goods, through fostering more cooperation among national market surveillance authorities. This includes sharing information about illegal products and ongoing investigations so that authorities can take effective action against non-compliant products. As a consequence, before taking further action on the safety of chargers and the reduction of counterfeit, it is appropriate to assess the effectiveness of the implemented measures mentioned above. Those aspects will therefore not fall under a specific policy option or action. The harmonisation of the interface on the end device will be based on international and European standards which are developed by industry. Those standards will represent a basis to strengthen the enforcement in the field, as it will provide a benchmark against which enforcement can take place. In order to keep track of the technological developments, any regulatory option descried in section 5.2 will be accompanied by an empowerment to issue delegated acts to keep the pace of possible future standards/revision of existing standards with common solutions. Those delegated acts, as common practice, will include a transitional period to allow industry and consumers to smoothly migrate to the new common solutions. 5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed? Policy Option 0 is the current baseline scenario of the revision, against which the potential impacts of the policy options are measured. This policy option consists in no EU action, meaning the preservation of the “status quo”, as described in section 2. Under this option, the MoU of 2018 – a voluntary action from the manufacturers – will remain the only voluntary tool through which signatories “declare their commitment to continue to enable smartphones to be charged through a common charging interface in fulfilment of the requirement of interworking between the power source and the smartphone while leveraging the ability of USB Type-C™ to be the common charging interface for other types of portable electronic equipment as mentioned in the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU (article 3.3a). In furtherance of this end, signatories agree to gradually transition to the new common charging solution for Smartphones based on USB Type-C”. However, this MoU: ·“is limited to wired charging solutions for Smartphones”; ·allows the following to “be considered compliant with this MoU: oa cable assembly that is terminated on both ends with a USB Type-C plug; oa cable assembly that is terminated on one end with a USB Type-C plug and has a vendor-specific connect means (hardwired/captive or custom detachable) on the opposite end; oa cable assembly that sources power to a USB Type-C connector from a USB Type-A connector”. ·allows that “Smartphone models compliant with the technical requirements as laid out in the first MoU (5 June 2009) may still be sold”; ·“shall not preclude innovation (for example in Smartphone and External Power Supply designs, battery and charging technologies, interfaces, adaptors, cables, or improved charging performance)”. The MoU will only cover, in a voluntary manner, the end-device connector described at the beginning of this chapter. The MoU does not include any of the other four specific objectives and currently there is no consideration to launch a new MoU. Therefore, its implementation will not lead to full interoperability. Additionally, manufacturers will be able to sell their mobile phones, or other similar devices, bundled or unbundled from a charger. 5.2.Description of the policy options The following packages have been considered as viable alternatives that will be subject to detailed assessment. ·Table 5 - Description of policy options Policy Option Harmonisation of the end-device connector Support of the relevant charging protocol on the end-device and informing consumers about charging performance Making available on the market at least unbundled solutions Option 0 No action No action No action Option 1 Mandatory No action No action Option 2 No action Mandatory No action Option 3 No action Mandatory Mandatory Option 4 Mandatory Mandatory No action Option 5 Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory

For all options, there would be then an additional consideration to either a narrow scope (mobile phones only) or a broad scope (mobile phones, tablets, cameras, earbuds and headphones, headsets, handheld videogames consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, smartwatches and fitness trackers). It is recalled that when no action is foreseen under “Harmonisation of the end-device connector”, the MoU 2018 keeps applying. Policy Option 0 – No action: This policy option entails no change to the current regulatory framework and to the ways of work. Policy Option 1: This option builds on the baseline and adds the measure to mandate a harmonised interface USB type C at the end-device’s side. Policy Option 2: This option builds on the baseline and adds the measure to mandate interoperability with suitable USB communication protocol at radio equipment side. It also adds as a flanking measure the measure to mandate manufacturers to inform consumers about the charging performance of the device. Policy Option 3: This option builds on the policy option 2 and adds the measure to mandate manufacturers to make available on the market at least unbundled solutions. Manufacturers will be left with the opportunity to supply also a bundled version. Policy Option 4: This is a combination of the measures in policy options 1 and 2. Policy Option 5: This is a combination of the measures in policy options 1 and 3. 5.3.Discarded options and measures ·A new MoU or a voluntary approach Under this option, industry would have improved the MoU of 2018, through a revamped request of the Commission, consumers and European Parliament, possibly expanding its scope or applicability (e.g. to uniformity of performance or information to users). It is recognised that the voluntary approach of 2009 has initially been successful in reducing significantly the number of charging solutions. However, to reach a new MoU took 9 years and the outcome has been deemed unsatisfactory to meet the policy objectives as a result of the opposition of major market players. Actually, the MoU of 2018 has been identified to allow even more solutions that the one of 2009, with a reduced commitment. Amongst others, the issue of performance was explicitly not addressed, despite the problem being already present at the time of adoption of the MoU. It is therefore highly unlikely that a new satisfactory MoU can be agreed and effectively implemented. ·Non-action on the charging protocol or unbundling whilst mandating information to consumers Interoperability with a shared communication protocol is a pre-requisite to achieve a coherent unbundling of the charger as well as to provide pertinent charging performance information to the consumers. ·Considering “the support of the relevant charging protocol on the end-device” and “informing consumers about charging performance” as two separate measures It would not be coherent to mandate equipment to be interoperable with chargers (up to the maximum power the device supports) without providing the related information to consumers, who would have to match devices and chargers. ·Considering “unbundling” without “the support of the relevant charging protocol on the end-device and informing consumers about charging performance” It would not be coherent to mandate unbundling of EPS leaving the consumers uninformed on the charging requirements and performance of the devices they plan to buy. ·Ad-hoc solutions (e.g. adaptors) for devices with proprietary interfaces This option would consist in obliging manufacturers of devices with proprietary interfaces to include in the box (i) exclusively a cable with a common connector with an adaptor from common to proprietary interface or (ii) an adaptor from the proprietary interface to a common interface. Both these suboptions was discarded as they would not solve the problem of full interoperability of chargers with devices and would not reduce the inconvenience to some users at the expense of inconvenience to other users. In addition, negative environmental impacts would have resulted from the need to supply adaptors which would not be used or easily lost. This was confirmed through the results of Public Consultation suggesting that consumers are not keen on adaptors , with only 25% stating they would be satisfied with this option. ·Harmonisation of EPS

Full harmonisation of the EPS (e.g. in terms of interfaces and performance) was discarded after the report of the study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices : all cables are detachable, and only two interfaces, both non-proprietary, are present on the EPS (USB type A and type C) due to an ongoing transition. The benefits of attempting to accelerate this transition risks to make obsolete a significant amount of existing EPS and charging infrastructure (e.g. at the airports, on trains, in vehicles, etc), with potential negative consequences and costs in terms of both consumers and e-waste. In addition, chargers are not in the scope of the RED. However, it is acknowledged that measures on the EPS side would usefully complement this initiative and the need of further action on the EPS side is being addressed in parallel (see Section 1 and Annex 6). ·Unbundling cables Under this option, the unbundling would not concern the EPS only but also the cable. Amongst all equipment for charging, cables are the product that consumers purchase most, counting for approximately 50% of the sales . This is due to different reasons, as cables (i) break more frequently than EPS, (ii) can be used for other purposes than charging (e.g. for transferring data to a laptop), (iii) can connect to existing dedicated charging ports (e.g. in airports, on trains, in hotels, etc)). As, in addition to the fact unbundling of cables will results in a higher consumer inconvenience, cables have a reduced impact on e-waste with respect to EPS (see table 4.4 and 4.5 of annex 4), this option was not retained. ·Making available on the market only unbundled solutions This option aimed to have on the Union market exclusively mobile phones sold without chargers. Surveys of consumers showed that around 80% of consumers still think it is important to find a charger (EPS and cable) in the box of the device they buy, which is also the result of the reduced information passed to consumers (see section 2.2). In addition, according to the stakeholders’ feedback, manufacturers are also most likely to offer only one packaging solution (unbundled) on the market if unbundling is mandated. Therefore, this option has been disregarded. ·Regulatory options on wireless charging Wireless charging is a new technology. The technology is not at a mature stage and it is too early to assess if and to what extent it could become a source of consumer inconvenience in the future. Nevertheless, there is no indication of an obvious problem, or a strong demand from consumers or stakeholders for a common wireless charger. A separate technical study confirmed a low fragmentation at the moment and a good level of interoperability among the different solutions for each product. Furthermore, wireless charging can be affected by the shape of the device to charge (charging pads for earbuds and other small devices have very specific shapes that have to match the product to ‘connect’ with embodied batteries). Manufacturers are currently working to a level of harmonisation and interoperability of this technology. The Commission will keep monitoring the situation, leaving the need to act to a future assessment. This initiative, however, will refine the empowerments to act on this type of charging. ·A scheme for labelling the equipment Finally, it would not be appropriate to pursue the option to set in place environmental information. Consideration of elements related to the chargers is being explored in ongoing Ecodesign/Energy Labelling studies (on mobile phones, tablets and laptops); pending the results of those, taking action at this stage appears unrealistic but to consider it in the future, specifically in the context of ecodesign developments . 6.What are the impacts of the policy options? This section describes the impact of different options as regards the wired charging solutions. As for the wireless charger the status quo will be preserved, there is no further analysis that will be run in this section. Legal and policy considerations, however, will be put forward in section 8.1. Economic, social and environmental impacts were considered in assessing the policy options. In more detail, it was sought to have a quantitative analysis, wherever possible, of the following aspects: environmental impacts, consumers’ perspective and convenience, effects on the industry in particular as concerns costs and employment. Other significant impacts such as impact on SMEs, innovation, competitiveness were also analysed. There are various uncertainties when projecting forward and assuming market and technological developments into the future, and also for the other assumptions that underpin the market model. Whilst some assumptions such as charger profiles, e.g. weight, price, etc, will see scaling effects proportional to the changes made, others can have more complex effects. The model was examined for variables for which sensitivity checks would be possible and where variance in the variable/assumption could have an important impact on the results. Also it was considered triangulation of data to validate model results, for example in terms of quantities of charger units, it provides good confidence that the model overall settings are robust as the number of EPS and cables in the stock, compared to the survey reported EPS and cables owned by consumers correspond closely. Feedback received from stakeholders were complemented through desk research, where possible. Efforts were spent to get reliable quantitative data. In many cases stakeholders could not provide precise costs or data, as reported in the different sections. Where possible, in order to remedy to this uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis was performed. For a full description of the limitation of the analysis and details concerning the methodology, we refer to Annex 4. It is specifically noted that limited EU industries are present in the sector, hence the related impacts lacked robust data. Further in this report, when referring to the industry, it is meant to refer to manufacturers of mobile phones and/or other portable devices, manufacturers of chargers, manufacturers of accessories, and wholesalers all together. For all mandatory options a transitional period will be observed, providing manufacturers sufficient time to adapt to the new requirements. It is noted that the selected common interface and communication protocols have been standardised at the international level, are widely available and also manufacturers of mobile phones with proprietary interfaces are using them on different products. It is noted that most of the companies in the supply chain of mobile phones and other portable devices and their chargers are located outside of the EU. There are few manufacturers of mobile phones headquartered in the EU (notably, HMD, Nokia, BQ, Wiko, and Fairphone). None of them use proprietary interfaces in their phones. Fairphone is the only SME, whose products come already without chargers. As regards manufacturers of chargers, in the EU there are around 10,000 companies manufacturing “other electrical equipment” in the EU (NACE 2790), of which it is estimated that around 1% (100 firms) manufacture power supply units for telecommunication apparatus. As in the next options the impacts on the EU industry is marginal, it is considered that there is no impact on European employment and it will not be repeated further. Regulations that affect the overall number of sales of EPS and cables in the EU would mainly affect the firms’ turnover and, therefore, may have wider implications on production. These effects have been modelled (see Annex 4) and differences in revenues between the policy options and the baseline have been reported. Specifically for certain technical aspects of the measures described in section 5.2, namely the harmonisation of the end-device connector and the support of the relevant charging protocol on the end-device, doubts that were occasionally put forward concerned the creation of a non-tariff barrier, with specific respect to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. In that respect, it has to be noted that any regulatory option will ensure that (i) imported products will not be subject to a stricter regulation than products which are EU-manufactured, (ii) the requested interoperability aspects will be based on specific clauses of international and manufacturers’ drafted standards, (iii) those clauses will be necessary to fulfil the policy objectives. This is of the utmost importance, recalling that the reference to international and manufacturers’ driven standards is presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade as per the Agreement itself. 6.1.Policy Option 0 – baseline scenario As described in section 2 and Annex 5, the current situation is characterised by the co-existence of different interfaces and proprietary charging solutions as regards both the connectors and the communication protocols. Unbundling of EPS is taking place for certain models of mobile phones, whilst no information is given to the consumers on the charging requirements of the equipment. The situation for small electronic devices other than mobile phones is also fragmented. Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: Manufacturers support this option. EU MS have different views, with a majority not in favour. The European Parliament and the consumers’ associations do not support this option.

6.2.Policy Option 1 – Harmonisation of the end-device connector This option builds on the baseline and adds the measure to mandate a harmonised interface USB type C at the end-device’s side. This option requires that manufacturers of mobile phones with a proprietary connector would change them to a common one. The transition from the old common connector (USB type B) to the new one (USB type C) will be accelerated. The effect of this elimination is observed after 2024, which is a timeline consistent with the legislative one. Economic impacts: Impact on economic operators: The manufacturers of mobile phones using a proprietary connector will need to ensure that charging via USB Type C is possible for all new products from the date of implementation of the changes in the Directive. This might entail some one-off adjustment costs. There is only one manufacturer who will have to change the mobile phones to adapt them to the common interface. Other manufacturers typically use the common interface in devices in the middle-top end of the segment and they are progressively adopting it in devices in the lower end of the segment (Micro USB type B to be phased out by USB C at 95-99% by 2024 under the baseline). As regards the related costs, it was not possible to retrieve the following one-off costs: (i) whether the changes would concern the connector only as assembled on the board or they would concern other changes and which would they be, and (ii) to which extent the related costs have not been yet sustained (e.g. other products from those manufacturers already have a common interface). As regards administrative burden on businesses, there is already a standard in place and manufacturers with a common interface run tests on it as a matter of internal quality control. The compliance costs are consequently already part of the BaU. As discussed at the beginning of Section 6, there are a few EU manufacturers in the sector, some of which, SME in primis, already use a common interface in their products. Even taking into account the supply chain of major international manufacturers, impact on SMEs is negligible. As consumers will buy less cables (4.8% reduction in sales compared to the baseline), the profits for manufacturers of mobile phones and accessories with proprietary interfaces are expected to decrease by 8.4% after 2023. The overall impact for the worldwide industry with this option is a reduced turnover by 139 million EUR yearly (-8.2%) while the impact on EU industry will be limited to a loss of 18 million EUR yearly (-8.5%). The consequences on distributors and retailers until the point of sale will cause for them a reduction of turnover of 271 million EUR yearly (-9%). In this losses are also expected incomes from royalties. These ones are difficult to assess due to the lack of data from the manufacturers and therefore difficult to highlight. If not appropriately mitigated, this option could potentially have a negative effect in terms of reducing possible future innovation in phone connectors (see section 8.1). Impact on competitiveness and innovation: one of the arguments in the interviews from manufacturers using proprietary connectors is that their connectors allow certain advantages (e.g. they are lighter or thinner) and this may be reflected on the technical characteristics of their products. Hence, they argue that harmonising the connector would hamper innovation and it would likely damage their competitive position. In any case, recent developments show that mobile phones with the common interface can be actually thinner than those with a proprietary interface. It is also to be considered that those manufacturers are already migrating for certain products to the USB type C connector in their new tablets. Impact on Public Authorities: Public authorities have not, so far, enforced the presence of a common connector. The costs of checking its presence are believed to be negligible and the costs for checking its safety are already currently performed, so the costs are expected to be negligible. There will be no additional impact compared to the baseline for public authorities. In general, as also the other options can be verified by the Authorities either via inspection or via conventional tests on the equipment, the impact on the public Authorities is considered to be included already in the BaU, and hence negligible. Social impacts: Consumers convenience: The elimination of the need for proprietary connectors and cables will give a substantive economic gain to consumers. In fact, market share show that these type of cables represents 17% of the stock in the baseline, and can be up to 1.8 times more expensive than USB Type C to USB type C cables and 2.6 times more expensive than USB Type A to USB Type C cables. Consumer survey also reveals that a broken cable is the main reason for buying a new mobile phone charger (36% of cases). On average users of proprietary cables bought per capita 0.73 cables in the last 24 months, whereas the overall average for all brands is 0.51 cables. Consumers will buy less cables and the average price that consumers pay for the cable will decrease because of the harmonisation, resulting in a increase of the average money saved yearly by consumer of 549 million EUR (8.4%). This is the result of two effects, i.e. the removal of the necessity for proprietary connectors, which are more expensive than the common ones, and the reduction in the number of sold EPS and cables. Two significant sources of consumers inconvenience (see section 2.1) i.e. no access to a compatible charger and confusion about which electronic devices work with which charger works will be eliminated through the possibility to use common chargers with all devices within scope. Under this option, users of equipment with proprietary connectors will benefit from a reduction of price of chargers, cables and accessories, thanks to the absence ofroyalties which are passed on to the consumers. At the same time however, existing accessories can be connected to devices through proprietary connectors only. EPS are not in this category of accessories, as they are already interoperable through appropriate cables, which are distributed in the retail boxes almost in all cases. As regards those accessories, it is noted that (i) when those manufacturers switched to the USB type C connector on newer devices (e.g. tablets), consumers did not report major inconvenience and (ii) those accessories became wireless in the last years, therefore the market itself has already limited the inconvenience due to a change of the physical connectors. In the absence of precise data it is therefore not possible to quantify at which moment in time the consumers will have a break even between the (temporary) costs incurring from the change of interface and the (permanent) reduction of prices. Product Safety and Illicit Markets: this option could lead to a small reduction of the sale of substandard cables. According to the consumer panel survey, users of phones with proprietary connectors purchase slightly (approx. 27%) more stand-alone chargers than users of phones with USB connectors. As regards the safety of in-the-box chargers, a common universal USB Type-C connector at the phone end would have no impact on product safety. Safety risks from in-the-box cables are negligible to begin with, and there is nothing to suggest this option would make any difference in this respect. Environmental impacts: The environmental impacts from the fact that USB Type C cables and connectors are heavier (by 21.6% to Lightning and 237% to USB micro-B) are bigger than the reduction of standalones sales of cables will have the following net overall effects: ·A marginal increase in the materials used, this represents a 1.5% yearly increase compared to the baseline (329 tonnes). For this policy option, only minimal changes between 2024-2030 per material type are observed compared to the baseline (2% additional decrease of both the amount of the copper and stainless steel used); ·A nearly negligible effect in e-waste generated and represents a 0.8% yearly increase compared to the baseline (155 tonnes). The same trend is observed in the amount of untreated and recycled e-waste (0.8% and 0.9% increase to the baseline, respectively); ·A small increase in GHG emissions that represents a 1.6% yearly increase compared to the baseline (18 tonnes). The environmental impacts of disposing all accessories with proprietary interfaces, and their replacement by USB-C is unfortunately difficult to estimate because, as highlighted by the surveys, consumers tend to hold to the out-of-use accessories quite a long time before disposing them. Suboption: broad scope of the initiative As regards to the extension of the scope, the study shows that tablets, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers and cameras are suitable devices to be incorporated in the scope as they share a similar situation as mobile phones with regards to the connector. As they mostly use the USB type C, the accelerated transition would have minor negative effects on the environment but would increase further the savings for consumers, while also decreasing the profit for the industry. Therefore, extending the scope to other devices was deemed not to provide any additional positive impact either because it is not the best technical option and/or the negative impacts would clearly overweight the positive impacts. The impacts, when looking at the data available for tablets, cameras, and headphones, evolve to the following figures when comparing to the baseline (refer to Annex 4 for more details):

·The turnover of worldwide industries decreases of 180 million EUR yearly, 18 million for the EU industries, and decrease of 261 million EUR yearly for distributors and retailers. ·The saving to consumers will be in the order of 620 million EUR yearly; ·The material use increases by 524 tonnes more yearly, the e-waste by 280 tonnes yearly and GHG emissions by 25 ktCO2 yearly. Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: Manufacturers do not support this option, nor the suboption. EU MS have different views, with an overall majority in favour, although they would prefer it in combination with other measures. The European Parliament and consumers’ associations would welcome this Option but would prefer it in combination with other measures. 6.3.Policy Option 2 – Support of the relevant charging protocol on the end-device and informing consumers about charging performance Under this option, the radio equipment will be mandated to be interoperable with suitable USB communication protocol and manufacturers will be required to inform consumers appropriately. Equipment which only requires reduced power inputs (5W or less) will not be mandated to support more expensive solutions, in line with the content of the standard. In more detail, ·As regards the information to consumers, there are two data that would allow consumers to understand the charging needs of new devices. These are (i) the maximum power that the device can take and (ii) the support to fast charging. Under this option, these data would be requested to appear in in a clear, intelligible and visual manner on the retail box -so to allow consumers to make informed decisions. This information will be complemented on the EPS side through the related eco-design initiative and will allow consumers to match them as appropriate. ·As regards the charging protocol, more and more EPS are supporting USB PD charging protocols, with increased versatility. On the one hand, consequently, devices will be requested to support (up to the maximum power), the USB PD charging protocol. On the other hand, however, manufacturers will not be prevented to develop on top of this common protocol, proprietary technologies for a competitive advantage. In other words, manufacturers will have to include at least the standardised fast charging protocol (USB PD) but will be allowed to include other technologies provided that minimum interoperability requirements (as in the USB PD standard) are guaranteed. This will allow to achieve the policy objectives on interoperability of the charging performance, whilst not preventing innovation. Economic impacts: Impact on economic operators: According to information provided by interviews, the cost for manufacturers of including USB PD at the device end would be a minor increase (0.6 EUR per phone). It would concern manufactures currently using proprietary fast charging protocols not compatible with USB PD or not supporting fast charging at all, around 20% of the volumes of the total market. Recalling that 260 million phones are sold in the EU yearly, this would account for 30 million EUR. Interviewed stakeholders foresee that phones currently using Quickcharge 3 will have naturally transitioned to later versions of Quickcharge compatible with USB PD, with costs therefore falling under the Business as Usual (BaU). This option will ultimately result in a reduction of standalone sales of EPS (4% reduction by 2030 compared to the baseline) and cables (3.1% reduction by 2030 compared to the baseline). This turns into a loss of revenues for worldwide ind