Table of contents 1Introduction Purpose of the evaluation Scope of the evaluation 2Background to the Intervention Description of the Low Voltage Directive and its objectives Previous Low Voltage Directives and changes introduced by the current Directive (LVD) 3Implementation / state of Play Relevant Bodies Guidelines European standardisation 4Methodology Data collection and consultation strategy Data analysis methodology Statistical data on products in the scope of the LVD Cost-benefit analysis 5Analysis of the LVD market Economic importance in the EU Intra- and extra-EU trade in low voltage products

Consumption of low voltage products 6Trends and developments within the low voltage market Technological innovations: connected systems and the internet of things E-Commerce 7Analysis and Answers to the Evaluation Questions Findings in relation to the Effectiveness of the Directive Findings in relation to the Efficiency of the Directive Findings in relation to relevance Findings in relation to the Coherence of the Directive (LVD) Findings in relation to the EU Added Value of the LVD 8CONCLUSIONS 9ANNEXES ANNEX 1 ANNEX 2 ANNEX 3 ANNEX 4 ANNEX 5 ANNEX 6





Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition A&I Accidents and injuries AdCo Administrative Cooperation (Group) CEN European Committee for Standardization CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization DG GROW Directorate-General for Growth - Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs EEA European Economic Area EFTA European Free Trade Association EHSR Essential Health and Safety Requirements EMCD Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 2014/30/EU ENs European Standards EU European Union FTE Full-Time Equivalent hENs Harmonised European Standards IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IoT Internet of Things LVD Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU Evaluation study Interim evaluation of the Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU Final Report by Ecorys, Valdani Vicari & Associati, Deloitte MD Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC MME Manufacture of Machinery and Equipment MSA Member States Authorities NA New Approach NACE (European) Classification of Economic Activities (Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne) NLF New Legislative Framework OJEU Official Journal of the European Union Safety Gate/RAPEX Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products RED Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU REFIT (Commission's) Regulatory Fitness and Performance RfUs Recommendation for Use sheets 1Introduction Directive 2014/35/EU on electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits, commonly known as the Low Voltage Directive (LVD), hereafter the Directive, is one of the core Union legislation regulating products of the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Industries, alongside the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU (RED) and the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 2014/30/EU (EMCD). . Purpose of the evaluation The first Low Voltage Directive (73/23/EEC ) was adopted in 1973. It was later amended and then codified and replaced by a second Low Voltage Directive (2006/95/EC ) which in turn was repealed and replaced by the current Low Voltage Directive 2014/53/EU. The purpose of this evaluation is to analyse the performance of the Low Voltage Directive towards its objectives of facilitating the free movement of electrical equipment across the Union and protecting consumers' and users' health and safety. The evaluation assesses the extent to which the Directive is fit for purpose, hence continues to deliver effectively, efficiently and at minimum cost the intended benefits for consumers and business. The evaluation is supported by an external study (hereafter evaluation study) , commissioned by DG GROW and conducted from June 2018 to June 2019. It should be noted that any data presented in this evaluation, which refers to EU or EU Member States, include the states which were EU Member States (i.e. EU27 and UK) when the evaluation study was carried out. Scope of the evaluation The evaluation covers all relevant product categories in the scope of the LVD (2014/35/EU) in relation to the EU, including the UK, the 4 European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, and Turkey. The evaluation covers the functioning of the Directive, including the processes involved in transposing, implementing and enforcing it, as well as assessment and monitoring procedures. The evaluation assesses the performance of the Directive according to five criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. 2Background to the Intervention Description of the Low Voltage Directive and its objectives The scope of the LVD covers electrical equipment with a rated voltage between 50 V and 1000 V (alternating current) or between 75 V and 1,500 V (direct current) that is placed on the internal market. The LVD has two main objectives. Figure 1 – Objectives of the Low Voltage Directive Source: Evaluation study Firstly, it provides that electrical equipment, within its scope, must be compliant with the necessary requirements to ensure the health and safety of persons, domestic animals and property. The safety objectives cover all risks arising from the use of electrical equipment, not just electrical ones, but also other risks such as mechanical or chemical (in particular, emission of aggressive substances). They also include health aspects of noise and vibrations, and ergonomic aspects as far as ergonomic requirements are necessary to protect against hazards in the sense of the LVD. To this end, the economic operators can rely on harmonised standards (the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the EU under the Directive) which, when fulfilled by the equipment, give a presumption of conformity with the corresponding safety objectives. Secondly, it aims to guarantee that compliant products can move freely within the internal market, for the aspects it covers (health and safety), thus ensuring the functioning of the internal market.

Typical example of electrical equipment falling under the LVD are, but not limited to, household appliances such as television, refrigerator, oven, microwave, toaster, blender, lamps, etc.; cables; power supply units; laser equipment; certain components such as fuses, etc. Annex II to the LVD lists the types of equipment, which are excluded from the scope of the LVD. Moreover, pursuant to the Radio Equipment Directive (RED) and the Machinery Directive, the LVD does not apply to equipment within the scope of those Directives, but the safety objectives of the LVD which are up taken by those Directives, apply to that equipment. To achieve the objectives of the LVD, the economic operators can rely on: -Harmonised standards which give a presumption of conformity with the corresponding safety objectives; -Conformity assessment procedure in which the manufacturer ensures and declares conformity of the electrical equipment with the provisions of the LVD ; -Market surveillance which can monitor the compliance of a product with the LVD objectives. The figure below (Figure 2) provides an overview of the intervention logic. Previous Low Voltage Directives and changes introduced by the current Directive (LVD) The first LVD 73/23/EEC, was adopted in 1973, as one of the EU’s first product harmonisation directives. It introduced manufacturers’ obligations to ensure that equipment placed on the market is safe, which is still the core of the LVD today. Although the CE marking did not yet exist at that point, the first Low Voltage Directive already included provisions regarding conformity declaration and marking. In 2006, Directive 2006/95/EC replaced Directive 73/23/EEC, as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC on CE marking rules, but the contents of the amended Directive 73/23/EEC were not modified. In 2008, the horizontal provisions of the New Approach were reviewed with the adoption of the New Legislative Framework (NLF) i.e. Regulation (EC) 765/2008 , Decision No 768/2008 and Regulation (EC) 764/2008 . The Alignment Package was a term used to describe the process of bringing Union harmonisation legislation (i.e. industrial product directives, such as the LVD) up-to-date with the NLF. On 29 March 2014, the Commission published the recasts of eight CE marking directives, which included the LVD (2014/35/EU). As a result, Directive 2006/95/EC was repealed and replaced by the current LVD, Directive 2014/35/EU, which entered into force in April 2014 and became applicable as of 20 April 2016. Additionally, the current LVD was also aligned with the procedures of the Standardisation Regulation (EU) 1025/2012. Thanks to the alignment to the NLF, the current Low Voltage Directive clarifies the definitions and obligations of economic operators, regulates the conformity assessment in further detail, clarifies the meaning of CE marking and improves the procedures on market surveillance. The most significant changes are the removal, from the market surveillance provisions, of the references to any implication of notified bodies for assessing the conformity of products in view of their placing on the market and the introduction of the rule that the references of the harmonised standards shall be published in the OJEU under the LVD, in order to grant presumption of conformity with the corresponding safety objectives. The current LVD did not amend or modify the second LVD’s legal substance with regard to its objectives (e.g. its safety objectives which remain unchanged which, unlike in the new legislative framework, are not called essential requirements) and main scope (it has only inserted an exclusion on ‘Custom built evaluation kits destined for professionals to be used solely at research and development facilities for such purposes’). As of 16 July 2021, the LVD will apply in conjunction with the market surveillance provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. It is in this context that the present evaluation looks at assessing the degree of achievement of the original objectives of the LVD (2014/35/EU) as regards to effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, and EU added value. 3Implementation / state of Play

All EU Member States have communicated to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national law which they adopted in the field covered by the LVD. Currently, there are no infringement procedures in relation to the LVD. Member States are responsible for appointing competent authorities responsible for the implementation of the Directive at national level and for ensuring that the Directive is effectively enforced within their territories. As such, they are also responsible for market surveillance, including penalties. Relevant Bodies Several specific bodies assist the Commission in managing, monitoring and enforcing the implementation of the LVD: The Committee on Electrical Equipment was established pursuant to Article 23 of the LVD, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 concerning mechanisms for control by EU Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. It consists of representatives from the EU Member States as members, as well as EFTA countries and Turkey, as observers. The Commission is required to consult the committee when implementing acts are prepared under the LVD and on any question where the opinion of sectoral experts is required by the EU legislation (notably Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation). The LVD Working Party is the most frequently used forum to discuss the practical application of the Directive at EU level. It is composed of representatives of EU Member States, as members, as well as EFTA countries, Turkey and stakeholders such as standards makers, industry representatives, consumers associations, etc., as observers. It is organised and chaired by the Commission. The LVD AdCo (Administrative Co-operation) is composed of the national market surveillance authorities responsible with the enforcement of the Directive. It works independently from the Commission. National market authorities use this working group for international co-operation and information exchange. Guidelines Additionally to the above groups, the Guidelines on the application of the LVD developed in cooperation with all stakeholders represented in the LVD Working Group, is a widely used tool that is highly appreciated for facilitating the effective and efficient application of the Directive. European standardisation The European harmonised standards (hENs) which give presumption of conformity to the Directive when published in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU) underpin the implementation of the LVD. These harmonised standards are developed by the European standardisation organisations (CEN and CENELEC) with the active participation of the industry, consumers and workers representatives. Harmonised standard translate the essential health and safety requirements (EHSR) into detailed technical specifications for certain types of products. 4Methodology Data collection and consultation strategy The evaluation study was conducted from June 2018 to June 2019, with data collection activities running until April 2019, as presented in detail in Annex 3. The findings of the study are based on a programme of research and analysis, which included the following: -Desk research Desk research was a constant activity during the whole study. It analysed relevant documentation, including Regulations, Directives, Communications, Notices and Working Documents, Joint Market Surveillance Actions, as well as internal notes and minutes, reports from other studies, reviews and monitoring activities (see Annex 5). Database extracts from Eurostat, the Rapid Alert System for Dangerous Non-Food Products (Safety Gate/RAPEX) and from national authorities, etc. were also analysed. -Interviews A total of 65 interviews were carried out as part of the consultation activities. Different types of stakeholders, at both EU and national level, were interviewed. Stakeholders from third countries were also interviewed with the aim of completing the understanding of legislative systems for low voltage products in other regions of the world (presented in Annex 5) and possibly spot ‘best practices’. -Consultations For the evaluation, two online consultations were carried out: a targeted stakeholder survey, with differentiated questions per type of stakeholder, and a Public Consultation (Public Consultation) with one single set of questions for all respondents.

oTargeted stakeholder survey The stakeholder survey was launched on 4 December 2018 and addressed to the sector’s relevant stakeholders. Its initial closure date was planned on 15 January 2019, but to maximise the response rate over the holiday period, it was extended until 31 January 2019. In total, 221 respondents answered the survey. Out of these, 116 were manufacturers, 10 were importers and distributors, 13 were National Authorities including market surveillance authorities, 40 were business associations, 4 were consumer organisations, and 38 reported as belonging to “others” group. This last category included, among others, testing and standardisation organisations, notification bodies, consultancies, academic and educational organisations. oPublic Consultation In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, a Public Consultation was launched on 10 January 2019, for 12 weeks. The Public Consultation questionnaire was addressed to all EU citizens. The Public Consultation gathered 93 replies across 17 Member States. The highest number of replies came from Germany and the UK. -Workshop A workshop was organised on 8 February 2019 in Brussels during the LVD Working Party (39 members participated), to discuss the preliminary findings about the three following topics: understanding of the LVD, implementation of the LVD, and, enforcement of the LVD. Data analysis methodology Following the data collection activities, data triangulation was conducted where possible, in order to map different inputs from various sources against each other, and deduct findings. Due to the lack of existing evidence, notably quantitative data, on the actual performance of the LVD as regards the evaluation criteria, this evaluation largely draws on the findings of the interviews and workshop carried out as part of the evaluation study. The opinions of the different stakeholders’ groups have been taken into account (including under-represented stakeholder groups such as SMEs and consumers) and cross-checked against each other. Further, the targeted stakeholder survey as well as the Public Consultation results – though not statistically representative - were leveraged to validate or challenge the trends identified through the previously mentioned data collection activities. Statistical data on products in the scope of the LVD A challenge for the data collection and the analysis is that low voltage products are not a defined sector in the industry and are also not logged as a separate group of products in statistical databases. Consequently, assumptions were needed in order to define the low voltage sector in relation to market data. The manufactured products described in the NACE categories contain products falling both within and outside the scope of the LVD. Therefore, the more detailed Prodcom-level product list for each of these NACE categories were applied to specific criteria in order to define whether each product category fall within the scope of the LVD. To fall in the scope of the Directive, a product category has to comply with the following criteria: ·The product refers to electrical equipment; ·The product falls within the voltage limits set by the Directive; ·The product is not part of the exceptions included in the Directive; and ·The product that is not excluded from the LVD because it falls under other relevant Directives (such as the Radio Equipment Directive or the Machinery Directive). Based on those criteria, 188 Prodcom-level products under 9 NACE Rev. 2 categories are potentially falling within the scope of the LVD. However, it is not possible to have a clear conclusion for each product category as they consist of a mix of products. Hence a ‘minimum’ range of products that are in the scope of the LVD, and an ‘additional’ range of products that can be either within or outside the scope of the LVD. These two categories establish the ‘maximum’ range of products that can be covered by the LVD. Data on dangerous products falling under the LVD was collected through the Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products (Safety Gate/RAPEX). As Safety Gate/RAPEX uses different categorisation of products, it was not possible to link the products immediately to the product groups used in the economic analysis of the evaluation study. However, the most commonly reported Safety Gate/RAPEX category for which reference to non-compliance with the LVD is made is electrical appliances and equipment (55% of such alerts over 2005-2018), which includes equipment such as small kitchen appliances and home electronics, cables, chargers and adapters, and hand tools. 76% of the Safety Gate/RAPEX measures on products covered by the requirements of the products under the Directive reported originated from China across the years. Cost-benefit analysis

It should be noted that stakeholders consulted provided very limited quantitative data on the costs and the benefits of the LVD during the evaluation study. There are two main reasons to that: -The LVD sets few obligations directly for stakeholders and provides a framework for good conduct though the referral to other instruments (Market Surveillance, CE Marking, Conformity Assessment, Harmonised Standards). -In addition, the LVD is now fully integrated in the national regulatory framework and it is challenging for stakeholders to assess (quantitatively) the costs and benefits that arise from the application of the Directive. Detailed information on statistical data used for products within the scope of the LVD, Safety Gate/RAPEX and cost and benefits data is provided in Annex 3. 5Analysis of the LVD market As stated in section “Statistical data on products in the scope of the LVD”, the assumptions for the products data provided allow us to present a ‘minimum’ range of products that are within the scope of the LVD, and an ‘additional’ range of products that can be either within or outside the scope of the LVD. Together, these categories constitute the ‘maximum’ range of products that are covered by the LVD. Most data presented in this section cover the maximum range of the low voltage market (minimum and additional products). Economic importance in the EU The minimum range of products on low voltage market represents approximately 1% of the European manufacturing sector. The additional range of products on low voltage market represents approximately 2.7%. Both together result in 3.7% of maximum range of products for a total amounted of EUR 206,067 million in 2017, with the most significant NACE industry categories being that of motors, generators, transformers and electricity distribution and control apparatus followed by domestic appliances and equipment for motor vehicles. With regards to low voltage production within each industry, those that have the highest percentage of products falling under the LVD are electrical and electronic equipment for motor vehicles, electric domestic appliances and other electric equipment. Germany has the largest average of the yearly production values over the past five years from EU Member States . Figure 4 shows the average of the yearly production values over the past five years across different Member States. A five-year average is used, as annual data could give an inaccurate picture because there can be significant fluctuations in production values, largely due to data availability. Figure 3 – Member State annual average production of Low Voltage product group (annual average 2012-2017) Source: Evaluation study Low voltage product manufacturing has grown at a slightly lower rate than the overall EU manufacturing industry. The maximum low voltage production (minimum and additional) dropped from representing 5.0% of EU manufacturing in 1995 to approximately 3.8% in 2017. However, it should be noted that product level data are not complete, as a large share of product-level data is reported as confidential. Intra- and extra-EU trade in low voltage products In 2017, intra-EU trade was larger than extra-EU trade and the EU imported more than it exported. Table 1 shows the levels of EU trade of low voltage products with EU Member States and countries outside of the EU (for readability referred to as intra- and extra- EU). Intra-EU Extra-EU Minimum range of LVD Maximum range of LVD Minimum range of LVD Maximum range of LVD Exports 40,606 203,059 33,972 101,825 Imports 19,735 128,874 Source: Evaluation study calculations based on Easy Comext EU exports in low voltage products have always been higher in the intra-EU market as compared to the extra-EU market. The value of trade in low voltage products between the EU Member States has fluctuated between 60% and 70% of total low voltage trade of the EU Member States over the past decades. While both types of exports have been growing at similar rates, intra-EU exports have grown a bit more rapidly over the past 5 years, gaining in importance compared to exports to extra-EU countries.

The product category in trade with the highest values is that of machines for the reception and conversion of voice images or data (including switching and routing apparatus but excluding telephones for wireless networks) as well as apparatus for electric control or the distribution of electricity, electric conductors and switches. Intra EU trade shows large values for electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits, e.g., switches, relays, fuses, surge suppressors. Extra EU exports is strong on electric motors and generators (excl. generating sets) and electric transformers, whereas extra-EU imports have larger values for products with more domestic purposes, such as electric heaters, hairdryers, hand dryers and electric smoothing irons. For imports, the larger intra-EU flows also holds, though the difference in trends between intra and extra- EU imports in recent years has been less pronounced. Source: Evaluation study calculations based on Easy Comext. Source: Evaluation study calculations based on Easy Comext The above figures show the trends for the maximum range of low voltage products. When disaggregating these values per product categories, the ‘minimum’ low voltage category is relatively more important in EU exports to the rest of the world than in its imports from other countries. Since 2013, imports into the EU have increased much faster than EU exports to the rest of the world, therefore increasing the trade deficit. Regarding trading partners outside the EU, China is by far the largest import partner. Export partners are more varied, with the US accounting for the largest share of exports. Approximately 45% of extra-EU imports in 2018 came from China, which is the result of a significant growth in Chinese low voltage imports that started in the early 00s and have been growing exponentially since 2007. Consumption of low voltage products Over the last 20 years, European consumption of electronic equipment has steadily increased. Although in 2008 consumption of products under the LVD showed a decrease as a result of the economic crisis, consumption has recovered after and was back on pre-crisis levels by 2016. However, values should be taking as an approximation, both due to missing values for certain products and years and due to the combination of different statistical categories (Prodcom for production and HS for trade). Additional figures supporting this section “Analysis of the market” can be found in Annex 4. 6Trends and developments within the low voltage market Main trends and developments identified within the low voltage market are technological innovations and e-commerce. Technological innovations: connected systems and the internet of things The scope of the LVD and the products it covers are affected significantly by the increasing importance of the Internet of Things (IoT), where everyday products are embedded with computing devices allowing them to wirelessly send and receive data. Consumer electronics accounts for one of the largest segments of the IoT market. The surge of “smart homes” with multiple purposes (energy saving, replenishing, remote control, etc.) is expected to keep growing. The expected average annual growth rate of smart appliance users in Europe is 33% for the period of 2016-2022 . Statista , a provider of market and consumer data, estimated household penetration of smart homes in Europe at 10.9% for 2018, expecting this value to rise to 22.5% by 2023. This means that almost a fourth of all European households is expected to have at least one type of home automation functionality in place – be that in appliances, entertainment systems, temperature control or lighting. These were the growth rates expected before the apparition of Covid-19 crisis.

Developments in IoT affects the coherence between the LVD and the RED, which is further analysed in chapter 7.4. E-Commerce E-commerce continues to grow. Seven in ten European online shoppers bought items from retailers outside their home country in 2017 and EU enterprises turnover from e-commerce reached an average of 18% of their total sales in the same year. The main trends reveal that purchasers prefer to buy low voltage products online and in electric/electronic stores, while second hand transactions are the least common shopping mean. Around 77% of the shopping in electric stores happened in the country of origin of the purchasers and 18% in another Member States. Concerning online shopping, before the Covid-19 crisis, nearly 57% of the products were purchased in the country of origin, 25% in another European country and 18% in another country outside the European Union. Overall, the participants seem to prefer buying low voltage products in their countries or at least in the European Union. The most quoted countries for the extra-European countries were the Asian ones, China in particular, and the US. E-commerce changes the way consumers shop on a large scale, with 40% of consumers preferring to buy consumer electronics online. This was also confirmed by the Public Consultation (Public Consultation) carried as part of evaluation study. 7Analysis and Answers to the Evaluation Questions Findings in relation to the Effectiveness of the Directive This section presents the findings on the effectiveness of the LVD at the level of its core objectives. Regarding the Directive’s contribution to the internal market, notably about the difficulties to apply the LVD in practice, 85 out of 116 manufacturers that responded to the stakeholder survey declare facing no issues or some issues to a limited extent. Out of the 27 economic operators having reported facing issues to some or great extent, 18 provided further insights through comments. The remaining 4 respondents didn’t know if applying the LVD induced difficulties. Overall, the main concerns are related to the overlaps with other legislation such as the RED or the MD. This statement is valid irrespective of the size of the businesses as presented in the figure below. Similarly, the majority of manufacturers (90 out of 116) reported no issue related to the cross-border implementation of the Directive. Figure 6 - Stakeholder survey/Manufacturers Q.9: "To what extent do you experience difficulties in applying the LVD?" Source: Stakeholder survey, evaluation study The stakeholder survey provides a positive feedback relating to LVD’s contribution to a well-functioning internal market. 9 out of 12 national authorities having replied to the survey indicated that the LVD facilitates the functioning of the internal market. Similarly, the four consumer organisations also replied positively to LVD’s contribution to intra-EU trades. The majority of consulted manufacturers, importers and distributors having taken part to the survey share the opinion that the Directive was successful in harmonising the rules and requirements within the Member States and therefore, the LVD facilitates the free movement of products in its scope across the EU. Importers and distributors that replied to the survey also reported no significant issues related the LVD when importing/distributing products within the EU. Furthermore, 90 out of the 116 manufacturers reported that the LVD facilitated intra-EU exchanges to at least some extent, with the majority (69) being satisfied to a great extent; these opinions are aligned across SMEs and large corporations. Out of the 116 manufacturer respondents, only four considered that the LVD did not facilitate EU trade in any way. Figure 7 – Q10 Manufacturers: “to what extend do you think the LVD facilitates intra-EU exchanges. Source: Evaluation study, Stakeholder survey The impact of extra-EU competitors reaching their consumers via online sales may be considered as a factor undermining the achievements of the LVD related to fair competition. Indeed, through e-commerce, consumers receive products directly (at home) meaning these do not transit by the shelves of stores within the internal market, and therefore, this business model might be disruptive of the usual market surveillance inspections. E-commerce changes how businesses market products, where products are sourced from and the distribution channels. The imported products must comply with Union harmonisation legislation on products, as products offered for sale online to EU consumers are considered as being placed on the EU market. Challenges still remain related to all players in the process, including economic operators, surveillance authorities and consumers. Issues are:

·An increased number of non-EU economic operators active in the EU and the difficulty of tracing them; ·A lack of physical access to the products on the side of national market authorities making it difficult to sample products or conduct risk assessments (e.g. not all MS can purchase online items); ·A lack of awareness on the side of consumers about product compliance online. Some steps are being taken by the Commission for an increased clarity of e-commerce rules but challenges remain in particular related to market surveillance. Market surveillance authorities have – to various degrees - started developing capacities and tools to help market surveillance for products sold online, but have not yet caught up with this fast-evolving sector. Additionally, the Goods Package communication was initiated in 2017 with the aim to reinforce trust in the single market and address the weaknesses of the single market for goods that relates to the enforcement of EU harmonised product safety rules and that relates to products (sold online or offline) that do not fall under harmonised EU product safety rules, or only fall partially under such rules. Market surveillance for the LVD has been highlighted as a key issue regarding the implementation and enforcement of the LVD and affected the fairness of LVD with regards to EU enterprises within the internal market. It was mentioned by both companies and national authorities interviewed that at the moment, (compliant) EU enterprises did not compete on a level playing field with extra-EU competitors, especially those active on e-commerce platforms. Extra-EU competitors faced fewer deterrents to incompliance than (compliant) EU enterprises, and therefore, were able to offer similar products at cheaper prices on the EU market. As regards the European harmonised standards, which are outside the scope of this evaluation, all types of stakeholder groups consulted confirmed that standardisation is an effective means to ensure the adaptability of the Directive to market trends, including technological innovation. Harmonised standards are implemented at national-level and entail the withdrawal of any conflicting ones. This transposition at national level therefore clearly contributes to the removal of barriers to trade within the single internal market. This was also confirmed by the economic operators having replied to the survey who highlighted the positive effects of standardisation on the internal market. To analyse the extent to which the Directive contributed to health and safety, the consultations data as well as available data from Safety Gate/RAPEX was used, see Annex 3 for detailed explanation. Opinions from the stakeholders and limitations of the economic data were also considered. Additionally, the reports for Coordinated Activities on the Safety of Products and Joint Market Surveillance Activities for LVD products were used. The consultations data indicated that the majority of all respondent groups, including 9 out of 12 authorities, considered the main benefits deriving from the LVD related to health and safety protection to be ‘high’. Similarly, 3 out of 4 consumer associations having replied to the survey reported that the LVD had improved the safety of the low voltage products available on the market at least to ‘some extent’. Regarding economic operators, 18 out of 26 SMEs reported an improvement in the safety of electrical products thanks to the LVD to a “great” or at least to “some” extent. The figure was even higher for large companies (77 out of 90). Importers and distributors appeared to agree on the high guarantee of safety ensured by the LVD provisions with manufacturers though to a lesser extent. During the Public Consultation, 24 out of 93 respondents affirmed they had been involved in a risky situation with an LVD product. All the 24 individuals that replied positively added detailed descriptions of the dangerous situation. The dangerous products were various, such as toys, electric kitchen utensils, adaptors, etc. Situations in which instructions were not included or the CE marking was missing were also described. Following the dangerous situation, 10 consumers decided to contact the seller of the product, 9 consumers decided to contact the economic operator specified in the user’s manual, 7 to not contact anyone and 7 to contact the authorities. Only 1 individual contacted a consumer association. Hence, while the perception of both EU Member States authorities and consumer organisations is rather positive about the level of safety of low voltage products in the EU, there is still quite some room for improvement in this area. National authorities participating in the stakeholder survey were also asked to provide some information from their perspective on the numbers of non-conforming equipment. According to them, ‘electric lighting equipment’ was the category most commonly found to be non-compliant, followed by electric domestic appliances and consumer electronics. Figure 17 below displays the numbers in more detail. Figure 8 – Q9 Authorities: “What types of LVD equipment are most commonly found to be non-compliant Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey It should also be noted that in Safety Gate/RAPEX the most commonly reported category of equipment is electrical appliances and equipment (55% of alerts over 2005-2018), which includes equipment such as small kitchen appliances and home electronics, cables, chargers and adapters, and hand tools. In the same vein, according to the authorities having replied to the survey, electric lighting equipment, electric domestic appliances and consumer electronics are also the items most commonly recalled from the market. Harmonised standards providing presumption of conformity have been widely reported as being the preferred method for ensuring the compliance of electrical equipment, both in quantitative (i.e. it is the most used) and qualitative (i.e. it is the most preferable) terms. This was unanimously underlined by all types of stakeholders consulted as part of the study, including consumer organisations, national authorities, business associations and economic operators, including standardisation bodies. All types of stakeholders highlighted the capacity of standards to ensure the convergence, throughout the EU, of state-of-the-art practices guaranteeing the safety of low voltage products, notably by formalising the essential safety requirements of the Directive that may be considered very generic and succinct. During the interviews carried out with the 38 business-related stakeholders consulted as part of this evaluation, standards (mostly harmonised and international) were unanimously mentioned as being the most leveraged means for economic operators to manufacture compliant products. The benefits linked to the presumption of conformity offered by the use of standards was considered to strongly outweigh their economic cost. Indeed, it has been reported by economic operators, industry associations and standardisation bodies that deviations from standards occurred very rarely. Industry associations actually mentioned there was an implicit rule in the sector: ‘if there is a standard, use it’. Deviations from standards may happen particularly when a product is very specific or new to the market. In such cases, manufacturers interviewed report that existing standards were used as ‘inspiration’ to the extent possible in order to leverage ‘best practices’. This again underlines the importance of the voluntary characteristic of standards with regards to innovation and new product development. In the same vein, the 116 manufacturers having replied to the stakeholder survey, highlighted a number of benefits related to the use of standards. These included namely: ensuring the safety of products (48x), providing a level playing field in the EU (41x), allowing for the simplification and easier interpretation of the legislation (18x), enhancing the Internal Market and extra-EU trade (15x) and reducing liability risks (1x). Some manufacturers commented that the LVD is “Defining clear & detailed rules for certain product categories to enable a level playing field in the common market” and also “A simple directive and well-designed standards, drafted by experts, creates safe products and a level playing field”.

Figure 9 – Manufacturers Q22: “What do you think are the main benefits deriving from standardisation for the LVD speciality?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey The consumer organisations having replied to the survey indicated the opportunity to play an active role in setting standards, as well as to timely modify standards to ensure the safety levels required by the Directive are reached, as the highly-ranked benefits. Based on the national-level interviews, the stakeholder survey and the LVD Working Party Workshop, it appeared that overall, the current conformity assessment procedure (Module A, as provided by Annex III of the Directive) was rather positively regarded and considered to fulfil expectations related to ensuring safety of LVD products in a flexible and cost-effective way. Manufacturers considered themselves to be best placed to assess the risks related to their electrical equipment; for them their internal production control was effective and sufficient to ensure the safety. Opinions of national authorities and consumer organisations were more nuanced. In particular 3 out of 4 consumers’ organisation stated that conformity assessment procedures guarantee safety of electrical products only to “some extent”. 8 out of 11 market surveillance authorities having replied to the survey considered Module A (which specifies the elements that the EU declaration of conformity shall contain) as safety-enabling to some or to a great extent. Comments received included notably the following notes from market surveillance authorities: ·‘limited extent’: “Manufacturers (China!) do not always follow these procedures. Too complex? Too expensive?” ·‘limited extent’: “Conformity assessment could be according to the risks the products present - similar to Personal Protective Equipment legislation” ·‘limited extent’: “Modules B and H of the conformity assessment procedures should be included in the LVD Directive, because there are safety aspects involved which come with a higher risk profile.” Figure 10 – Stakeholder survey: “To what extend do you think that the tool of the conformity assessment procedures, as provided by the LVD 2014/35/EU, is sufficient and appropriate to guarantee the safety of electrical products?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey More diverging views were expressed for the absence of the Notified Bodies. Those views were presented in the stakeholder survey as highlighted in the figure below. Overall, very few manufacturers, consumer organisations, and business associations interviewed (≤≈25%) estimate that the absence of notified bodies has a negative impact on the safety of products. This opinion is bigger among importers, distributors, and national authorities (between 50 and 60%). Only one consumer organisation stated that the removal of Notified Bodies had a strong negative impact on safety (whereas the other three having replied to the survey did not have any opinion on this). National authorities having replied to the survey had the most negative view of all stakeholder categories: none of them reported a “somewhat positive” or “positive impact” related to the absence of Notified Bodies, whereas eight out of twelve considered their removal as having at least a ‘somewhat negative’ impact. Unfortunately, none of the stakeholders expressing negative opinions in the stakeholder survey provided a comment to better explain their perspectives. Figure 11 – Stakeholder survey Q14: “Since the LVD 2014/35/EU, the notified bodies are not anymore part of the procedure. What do you think is the effect of the current absence of notified bodies concerning safety of products?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey Consumer organisations present at the Low Voltage Working Party Workshop (and interviewed as part of other data collection efforts) welcomed the current conformity assessment procedure, however, some highlighted that in order to further enhance the current level of safety in the EU market, a Module B such as existing for the EMCD, involving a Notified Body, could be made available and/or in certain instances mandatory under the Directive, as for example proposed below. This was also in line with the comments received from national authorities outlined above. The underlying idea is that (1) some (new/innovative) products may still pose a significant threat to end-users and the product should therefore be cleared by a third party organisation rather than the manufacturer itself, and (2) that some economic operators, including SMEs (also supported by two national authorities present at the workshop), may be willing to de facto have recourse to Module B for all types of products, regardless of the risks they may represent, as they would rather rely on the expertise of a Notified Body in conducting the actual conformity assessment. In this second case, Notified Bodies are seen as a source of support and guidance for SMEs struggling with the conformity assessment procedure, or in cases of conflicts with Market Surveillance Authorities. Such supportive role was also confirmed as beneficial through the stakeholder survey by manufacturing SMEs, importers and distributors. In particular, it was mentioned that for certain SMEs, it might be difficult to have the required technical expertise to demonstrate compliance, especially when developing innovative products which require a mix of different technical requirements. Further, even though there was not much information and consensus on the real impact of the provision (and how much it is strictly perceived as a “collateral effect” of the LVD), importers and distributors seemed to be more worried about the impact that the absence of notified bodies might have had on the safety of products than on the manufacturers, with 5 respondents reporting a “somewhat negative impact”. On the other hand, this provision was seen as a possibility for the industry to reduce costs. Figure 12 – Manufacturers Q14: “Since the LVD 2014/35/EU, the notified bodies are not anymore part of the procedure. What do you think of the effect of the current absence of notified bodies?”

Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey Figure 13 – Importers and distributors Q15: “Since the LVD 2014/35/EU, the notified bodies are not anymore part of the procedure. What do you think of the effect of the current absence of notified bodies?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey For all stakeholder groups consulted (including national authorities, consumer organisations and economic operators) the majority of respondents and/or interviewees presented positive feedback as regards the LVD’s contribution to safety of electrical equipment in the EU market. However, some improvement opportunities regarding practical features of the LVD were mentioned across all stakeholder groups, which would allow to further improve the safety of low voltage products made available in the internal market: All types of stakeholders noted that within the conformity assessment procedure (Module A), it may not always be clear for economic operators when there is a need for risk assessment and how to carry it out, which can compromise its implementation. In addition, some stakeholders, notably consumer organisations, may wonder whether all products should have the same procedure, or whether a distinction between risk-levels (e.g. the current self-certification for low-risk products and third-party certification for products with higher risks) would be more appropriate to prevent accidents. Example of such approach below: ·For products with low to medium risk levels, economic operators would be left with the choice of module A or B, as products in this category would not pose a serious and/or life threatening risk for consumers in any of their intended or reasonably foreseeable use. ·For products with high risk levels, economic operators would have to use Module B only, as products in this category may pose a serious and/or life threatening risk for consumers in some of their intended or reasonably foreseeable use. Such separation and list between medium risk and high risk products are not currently part of the LVD and it might make little sense to go in that direction. As underlined by EU Member States authorities, further analysis of the actual need to include Notified Bodies in the conformity assessment process as well as of the actual impacts of such inclusion should be carried out in order to be able to conclude with precision on this matter. Market surveillance data for LVD has been highlighted as a key issue regarding the implementation and enforcement of the LVD, having impacts on both core objectives. It was noted that while in some countries the process works very well, and in good cooperation with economic operators, inconsistency across the EU was a challenge. Variances in market surveillance intensity and practices, was considered by some national authorities to create ‘markets within the internal market’, with some economic operators choosing to go for countries where market surveillance activities were considered less stringent. The main issues for national market surveillance authorities were the lack of budget and adequate resources; limited administrative and legal capacity; lack of cooperation and communication at intra-EU borders and with customer authorities, and difficulty intercepting non-compliant products entering the market from outside the EU. Overall results of market surveillance activities within the EU Internal single market, showed that 58% of products evaluated were found uncompliant . However, it should be noted, that due to limited resources, products actually tested by market surveillance authorities were those that were already suspected as being dangerous. Due to these reasons, main LVD objectives and expected results are likely to be affected, in particular safety of the products sold, as not all non-conforming products can be intercepted on time on the ‘’output’’ end of the process; and fairness of LVD internal market, as, according to opinions gathered for the evaluation study, compliant EU enterprises do not compete on a level playing field with extra-EU competitors, especially on e-Commerce platforms. Market surveillance is supported by the Safety Gate/RAPEX System and a number of Joint Actions for specific products. Safety Gate/RAPEX aims to enable a quick exchange between 30 countries and the European Commission on measures taken against dangerous non-food products posing risks for the health and safety or the environment or any other aspect of public interest for protection of persons. It should be noted that the data submitted to Safety Gate/RAPEX depends on surveillance and reporting practices as well as the frequency of those practices, which vary both between countries and between years for a given country. Therefore, Safety Gate/RAPEX data is neither comparable across Member States, nor representative of the actual safety level in the EU. However, the data is used below to identify indications on equipment which tends to be most involved in cases of dangerous products, as well as on their most recurrent origin. Safety Gate/RAPEX includes more than 28 000 alerts overall. The categories used by Safety Gate/RAPEX differ from the product groups used in the market analysis presented in chapter 5. Following a filtering of the Safety Gate/RAPEX data based on a ‘risk of non-compliance with the LVD’, it appears that 3 223 alerts had been filed between 2005 and 2008. Among these products, 76% of the products reported originated from China across the years. From 2009 onwards, the share of reported LVD products originating from China has remained in the range of 79% to 89% each year. As discussed in chapter 5.2 China is the EU’s largest trade partner of LVD products, which partially explains the prevalence of unsafe Chinese products reported in Safety Gate/RAPEX.

The most commonly reported risk types in Safety Gate/RAPEX for electrical appliances are the risk of electric shock (65% of all alerts in 2005-2017), the risk of fire (5%), and the combination of the two (17%). Other types of risk reported include choking, cuts, burns, damage to sight, chemical, drowning, suffocation/asphyxiation, and unspecified injuries and health risks. The most commonly reported Safety Gate/RAPEX category is electrical appliances and equipment (55% of alerts over 2005-2018), which includes equipment such as small kitchen appliances and home electronics, cables, chargers and adapters, and hand tools. However, the most commonly appearing equipment include chargers (including ‘battery chargers’, ‘USB chargers’ and others), power supplies/power supply units, extension leads, and travel plug adaptors. The second most common category is lighting equipment (26% of the alerts in 2005-2018). Among the most common types of equipment in this category are ‘LED floodlights’, ‘table lamps’ and ‘LED lamps’. The third most common category is lighting chains (13% in 2005-2018). Joint Actions Data are also relevant in regard to market surveillance activities. Among those, in recent years, a few were analysing electrical equipment falling under the LVD. For example, in 2016, a Joint Market Surveillance Action (JA) on product safety of hairdryers, curling irons and hair straighteners was carried out. During this action, the results showed an overall percentage of non-conforming products at 58%. While the majority of nonconformities concerned poor user instructions, there were some significant safety-critical nonconformities, which is reflected in the 9 Safety Gate/RAPEX notifications, 18 withdrawn products and 13 sales bans. The failure of economic operators to provide documents of conformity upon request and the lack of traceability between the products shown in test reports and those products under test is concerning and suggests the need to maintain or even increase the level of technical documentation reviews. Another relevant joint action was carried out in 2015 for toasters, mixers and blenders. The results surprisingly highlighted failure rates of 95% for blenders, 87% for mixers and 58% for toasters. The overall percentage of nonconforming products examined was 80%. Lack of safety information and warnings in user instructions accounted for the largest percentage of standard clause failures. Samples demonstrating non-conformity with multiple standard clauses reached 79% for blenders, 66% for mixers and 20% for toasters. Many of the non-conformities were across several safety-critical clauses such as protection against access to live parts, heating, abnormal operation, screws and connections and resistance to heat and fire. In 2011, the joint action on household appliances having child appealing designs was published. Data on 163 different household appliances (excluding duplicates) were collected and 113 completed questionnaires were received. In regard to this data, an Atlas was developed to establish an operational and practical framework to assist the creation of a common understanding amongst market surveillance authorities of the characteristics that may increase the child-appealing nature of household appliances that are subjected to the LVD and sold on the European market. In sum, market surveillance is an external factor affecting the full achievement of both the health and safety and the internal market objectives of the LVD. However, in light of the upcoming legislative changes, the situation should be reassessed in the near future, following the implementation of all rules stemming from Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance. Findings in relation to the Efficiency of the Directive This section assesses the efficiency of the LVD, i.e. the extent to which the contribution to the objectives as discussed in the previous section is ‘good value for money’ in terms of the resources used to obtain the actual effects. The analysis of costs-benefits of the LVD is analysed for stakeholders: national authorities, economic operators and society as a whole. Different types of costs and benefits apply for each stakeholder group and they are briefly explained in this section. Costs for economic operators along the process of making low voltage products available on the internal market are as following: Figure 14 – Mapping of costs borne by economic operators Source: Evaluation study The first type of costs that should be considered are those related to any specific resources allocated to dealing with the compliance with the LVD. It appears from the interviews carried out that these costs are in fact non-significant. Indeed, regulatory compliance in general, appears to be treated within a quality assurance-related department, which therefore covers all sorts of legislation. In addition, companies irrespective of their size agree on the fact that LVD is to be considered effective and fairly easy to apply as it provides rather an overall framework of ‘good conduct’ than specific obligations. The analysis of compliance costs have been divided in two sub-categories, and pertain mainly to manufacturers duties. Specific resources costs, which are allocated to raise awareness of the LVD and to understand the requirements. None of the economic operators consulted reported specific resources allocated to the implementation of the LVD. This is an integrated part of the overall quality and regulatory compliance function of companies, which would exist irrespectively of the LVD. Technical compliance costs are required for manufacturing of products in line with the LVD requirements. Harmonised standards are the preferred option for technical compliance for all types of economic operators, irrespective of their size, whenever they are available.

Cost estimation for purchase standards are not easy. Anecdotic evidence from stakeholders shows that cost for purchase standards usually ranges between €400 and €1000 per product. It is to be noted that very often a single product involves multiple different standards (sometimes up to ten) that would bring the overall costs for standards up to €10 000 in average per product in a worst-case scenario. The costs of standards are in indeed significant, and even more so for smaller players (due to their limited financial availability). In addition to these, some operators are active in the standardisation activities by attending committee meetings and participating in the actual development of standards. All economic operators acknowledge the interests of standardisation but with a limited efficiency as they feel that the costs are high in proportion of the benefits. Some evidence from the manufacturers’ perspective, shows that overall costs for standards amount to less than 1% of annual turnover for the majority of respondents: 59 out of 75 for the implementation of new standards and 56 out of 89 for the design of new standards. Figure 15 – Manufacturers Q16: “Can you please estimate the overall annual average costs for activities linked to standardisation (% of annual turnover)?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey It should also be noted that as regards the implementation of new standards, proportionally more manufacturers consider these costs as exceeding 5% of annual turnover than it being between 1% and 5%. On the contrary, for the design of standards, more manufacturers tend to think that costs range between 1% and 5%, than over 5%. In relative terms, the cost associated with the development of new standards i.e. participation to technical committees, technical drafts, tests, etc., is perceived as higher than the actual use of standards. The findings are not sensitive to the size of the responding manufacturer. An important element to note is that a non-negligible community of manufacturers (45 out of 116) and mostly SMEs, rate these costs related to standardisation activities as ‘high’. Figure 16 – Manufacturers Q17: “Overall, how would you rate the cost for activities linked to standardisation indicated (in the previous question)?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey This indicates that even if these costs are lower than 1% or 5% of annual turnover, they are still considered to have a significant impact on businesses’ resources. Again, while these trends are observed in the survey results for all manufacturers irrespective of their size, the impact could be expected to be relatively higher for a smaller player than a large corporation. Lastly, when manufacturers are probed about the extent to which the aforementioned costs are proportionate to the benefits, the landscape is divided, as presented in the figure below: while 41 out of 116 respondents assess the costs as proportionate to ‘some extent’, the same number of manufacturers (32 out of 116), consider the costs as proportionate to a ‘great’ and ‘limited’ extent. The additional comments received largely point out to a lengthy publication process of harmonised standards at EU-level. Figure 17 – Manufacturers Q18: “To what extent do you consider the costs proportionate to the benefits for activities linked to standardisation?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey Procedural compliance costs which are related to the conformity assessment procedure, and the affixing of the CE marking. The manufacturer has to apply the internal production control procedure (Module A), which, does not involve any third parties. It appears from the interviews carried out at national level that economic operators still involve third party laboratories in the conformity assessment procedure in order to: -Guide the process and ensure accuracy of results; -Shift the responsibility to a recognised third party laboratory/certifier.

Administrative compliance costs such as monitoring and reporting of complaints pertain to all types of economic operators including manufacturers, distributors and importers. For all SMEs and large companies perception on the burden associated with LVD provisions are low to medium and importers and distributors participating in the survey provided very limited information about costs linked to the LVD provisions . The survey asked stakeholders to provide the opinion of the burden of a list of administrative/procedural compliance provisions in the LVD. It appears that overall, manufacturers consider the burden arising from LVD’s provisions as rather low (the response was selected 272 times in total across all provisions surveyed) or moderate (the response was selected 266 times in total across all provisions surveyed). Based on the majority of responses for each provision surveyed, the burden they represent can be summarised as presented in the following table. ‘Primary’ perception is represented by the answer having being selected the most by respondents, while ‘secondary’ perception is represented by the answer having being selected the second most times by respondents. Table 2 – Manufacturer’s perception on the burden associated with LVD provisions Source: Evaluation study In terms of the specific requirements to prove compliance with the LVD, clarity does not seem a problem to most economic operators, although they consider some provisions of the LVD outdated. This applies especially to the requirements with respect to marking and documentations. There have been technological trends that could be applied (e.g. QR codes, reference to websites), which with the current LVD provisions, is not possible yet. The related provisions are therefore considered as not responding to the current needs of economic operators that could be changed without significantly affecting the needs of other stakeholders (e.g. consumers). Based on the Public Consultation results, consumers would also favour to have information (partially) provided in electronic/digital format. Digital documentation, in fact, generates costs reductions. The Public Consultation also shows that while the level of information provided by the manuals was generally deemed sufficient by the majority of respondents, the information is not always easy to understand (e.g. (part of) the safety instructions) or to find (e.g. contact details of manufacturers or importers). All in all, from the economic operators’ perspective, it appears that costs related to the implementation of LVD can be ranked as follows (highest to lowest): 1.Technical compliance costs 2.Procedural compliance costs 3.Administrative costs 4.Specific resources costs. While some costs are perceived as being more justified/proportional to benefits than others, the overall landscape for the LVD is rather positive in terms of costs it entails for economic operators, irrespective of their size. The main costs for national authorities are associated with the activity for the market surveillance. Although it varies between EU Member States, it represents the highest ones. The main issues are lack of budget and adequate resources and the need for more resources. However, a new Regulation on market surveillance and compliance will enter into force on the purpose of enhancing and modernising market surveillance in the EU. The Regulation will apply also to LVD and might have a positive contribution to market surveillance. Economic operators are the principal beneficiary insofar; the LVD makes it easier to access the internal market. Furthermore, as regarding safety related elements, economic operators benefit from compliance savings and reputational benefits. Consumers (and more generally tax payers) benefit from having safer products in the market. The overall opinion of economic operators concerning the efficiency of the LVD is rather positive. 83% of manufacturers (from 116 who participated in analysis) and 80% of importers and distributors (from 10 who participated in analysis) and all 40 business organisations reported that overall costs stemming from the LVD are absolutely to somewhat proportional to benefits). Figure 19 – Manufacturers Q23: “Do you consider that overall costs stemming from the LVD are proportional to benefits?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey Figure 20 – Importers and distributors Q17: “Do you consider that overall costs stemming from the LVD are proportional to benefits?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey

However, 3 respondents out of 116 deemed the costs as completely disproportional, and 16 somewhat disproportional. Comments received included notably references to duplication of work due to overlapping legislation such as Directive 2014/53/EU or Directive 2014/30/EU. It was also mentioned that “The burden is disproportionately higher for the "good" manufacturers and suppliers”. These opinions are aligned across SMEs and large companies. Overall, the benefits generated by the LVD would significantly outweigh its costs when looked at from the aggregated level for all stakeholders. Relating to the relevance and added value of the Directive it can be concluded that the costs, which appear to be outweighed by benefits for all types of stakeholders involved, are borne for a justified cause. Regarding the potential for achieving some of the objectives of the LVD at a lower cost, it can be concluded that the lack of quantitative data does not allow to conclude on this question with precision. However, the positive contribution of the LVD in the achievement of the objectives could not be achieved at a lower cost, without compromising the safety objective, as the current conformity assessment procedure is already the less costly alternative. Findings in relation to The Relevance of the Directive This section presents to what extent the LVD still addresses current problems and needs. Given the length of the evaluation period, it is especially important to take into account developments in technologies, markets and the regulatory landscape. The main objectives of the LVD for safety and internal market are still relevant today, 45 years after the introduction of the first Low Voltage Directive. The LVD is relevant, because it addresses these objectives, and because there is no other legislation in place with the same scope. The LVD helps to reduce safety risks for consumers as only products that are safe and compliant are put on the market. The interviews with business (associations) as well as the workshops showed that for most economic operators (producers, traders), safety is considered a key issue for their competitiveness, as safety problems can damage their reputation, and therefore the LVD is seen to correspond to their needs. Some stakeholders have argued for a more precise list of safety risks, but others point to the risk that new, future, risks not being covered. Figure 21 – Survey question on relevance: “How relevant do you consider the Directive to ensure the safety of electrical products?” Source: Evaluation study, survey for the evaluation 82% of the 221 respondents consider the LVD to be “very relevant” for ensuring the safety of electrical products. With respect to the objective related to the free circulation, the LVD still responds to the needs of economic operators because it helps to prevent diverging regulations between EU Member States, thereby preventing trade costs and creating a level-playing field in the EU. The level-playing field that is created by the LVD is also beneficial for consumers, as the level –playing field also helps to prevent unnecessary costs of trade in the internal market. Figure 22 – Survey question on relevance: “How relevant do you consider the Directive to ensure an internal market for LVD products?” Source: Evaluation study, survey for the evaluation 74% of the respondents considered the Directive as ‘very relevant’ in achieving its objective of free circulation. The safety objectives should further be reflected in the future to examine whether there is need to address risks caused by the performance and not by the technical characteristics of the covered equipment. With respect to conformity assessment, one national authority expressed the opinion that the provisions of the LVD, referring to the conformity assessment, should be modified to only refer to harmonised standards. Also, the provision of the LVD referring to national/international standards was considered outdated, as “all economic operators seek the presumption of conformity”. Some stakeholders (notably national authorities like standardisation bodies or market surveillance authorities, but also some industry representatives) preferred more clarity on the definition of electrical product in the LVD. With the current definition, it is not clear what exactly is considered the product; does it go down to component level, full product level or beyond systems that consist of different products? The scope as defined in the LVD has been largely unchanged since 1973. However, there have been important developments that have affected the scope of the Directive. First, the market for LVD has increased in size and varieties. In addition, at the same time, several other Directives have been introduced since the first LVD came into force. These Directives cover products that could formerly be considered as within the scope of the LVD. This is especially true for products that now fall under the RED. For example, computers without Wi-Fi connection are considered LVD products, whereas when they have Wi-Fi connection, they fall under the RED. And with technological developments, it will be the case for an increasing number of different products (e.g. washing machines and refrigerators with Wi-Fi). There are other Directives which have similar effects, as highlighted in the coherence section.

The increasing overlapping between LVD and other Directives reduces the clarity of the scope of the LVD and, in some cases, increase the burden for economic operators. Although the issue was brought up by many stakeholders, we note that at the same time the incidence of these problems seems to be relatively low: for almost all products it is clear which Directive is applicable. (See section on coherence for details). However, some economic operators argued that it would be good to have a list of products that fall under the LVD, as it would reduce the uncertainty introduced by the emergence of new Directives. But many other economic operators warned that making an explicit list of LVD products runs the risk of accidentally excluding products, and the risk that with new technological developments, the list would have to be continuously updated. The voltage limits of the LVD, especially the lower voltage limit, have been a point of discussion with stakeholders and experts. Stakeholders have diverging views on this issue. It is mainly the businesses (the majority of manufacturers and business associations) who are of the opinion that the Directive should not cover the equipment operating at voltages below 50V AC / 75 V DC. These opinions are aligned across SMEs and large companies. Based on feedback received, they consider most of the products below the voltage limits as safe, also because the products still have to comply with the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC (GPSD). In addition, including them in the LVD would increase the burden for economic operators. Especially where it involves very small, low cost products (e.g. birthday cards with music), the requirements of the LVD are considered too high in relation to their benefits. According to the opinion of technical experts, and as confirmed in stakeholder consultations, the fundamental problem is that the voltage limits that are used to categorise electrical equipment as LVD products, also suggest a categorisation of risks. This is not necessarily correct because not all risks have a firm relation to the product’s voltage. Here below are summarised the main technical aspects: ·The safety requirements in the LVD are not specified and go beyond electrical safety. And the lower voltage limit unwarrantedly excludes electrical equipment that may also carry non-electrical safety risk. ·The risk of thermal burn is a factor that may not depend on the voltage but instead could solely depend on the current or involved chemical processes (e.g. batteries). Electrical equipment below the lower voltage limit could still contain the risk of thermal burns. ·The debate on what voltage level results in unacceptable risks to the human body as a result of electrocution is ongoing. This risk does not only depend on the voltage, but also on the maximum current an electrical source can deliver, the impedance of the medium and the time the electrocution takes place. There are several types of risks that can lead to injury or death. One of them is fibrillation of the heart, which already happens at relatively low current (100 milli-Ampere). On the opposite side, the majority of other respondent categories with a view on this (i.e. consumer organisations, EU Member State authorities but also distributors and importers as well as others) indicate that the lower voltage limit should be removed. Many stakeholders gave the example of products that are below the lower voltage limit of the LVD (most cited products are those that operate on lithium batteries), and the increasing number of accidents with these products. While it is acknowledged that the extra-low voltage products, which are not covered by another specific Union legislation (such as RED) are covered by the GPSD, the LVD has more specific requirements and is therefore better able to ensure safety in their view. As regards the exclusions listed in Annex II to the LVD, many stakeholders do not have specific opinion or are of the opinion to not change the exclusions listed in Annex II. There is only one category of electrical equipment for which there are slightly more stakeholders encouraging their inclusion in the scope of the LVD, namely for “plugs and socket outlets for domestic use.” However, based on the stakeholder survey, the definitions of the equipment and phenomena excluded from the scope of the LVD could be clearer. The majority of the respondents had no opinion on the issue (e.g. due to a lack of expertise, given that it requires detailed knowledge of the Directive). Looking at the respondents who have an opinion on the definitions, we note that in general, less than half of the respondents indicate that the exceptions are well defined (“to a great extent”), while the majority indicates that this is not, to a limited, or to some extent, the case. Figure 23 – Stakeholder survey Q6: “To what extent are the definitions of products not included (in annex II) in the scope of the Directive well defined?” Source: Evaluation study, stakeholder survey Furthermore, the majority of all respondent groups, including 9 out of 12 authorities, highlight a number of issues deriving from the fact that LVD safety objectives also apply to other product legislations (namely the RED and the MD). It needs to be reflected whether the LVD safety objectives need to apply to electricity meters as they are currently excluded from the LVD. The RED applies to those products only if they are radio equipment. Non-radio electricity meters are, however, electrical equipment constructed, nowadays, with similar materials and same techniques like any other electrical equipment covered by the LVD. Moreover, it shall also be reflected whether any new exclusions should be inserted in the Annex listing the exclusions, in order to exclude products whose safety is specifically covered by another EU legislation such as the RED or the MD, even though the RED and the MD refer both to the safety objectives of the LVD. Other example would be the vehicle equipment covered by the EU legislation on type approval of vehicles. Lastly, clarifications might be appropriate on the existing exclusions, if they concern equipment covered by more specific EU legislation (such as medical devices, marine equipment, aviation equipment), so that those exclusions refer to any equipment to which that EU legislation applies. In addition, with such a reference, it will be clear that the LVD will not apply to equipment with non-medical intended purpose referred to in Annex XVI to Regulation (EU) 2017/745 , when that Regulation will apply to that equipment.

Findings in relation to the Coherence of the Directive (LVD) This section presents the findings on the coherence of the LVD, in terms of internal coherence as well as external coherence. The internal coherence of the Directive analyses the extent to which the legal text is internally coherent, and clear to economic operators and other stakeholders involved in its implementation, and whether the scope is appropriate. The external coherence of the Directive analyses to what extent there are any issues of coherence with other legislations with similar objectives, if there are overlaps or complementarities between the Low Voltage Directive and any other EU legislations, and to what extent is the intervention coherent with wider EU policy. The majority of the stakeholders identified no significant problems with the internal coherence of the LVD. No contradictions have been identified between the objectives of the LVD and the wider EU single internal market policy, and as discussed above, stakeholders credit the Directive’s longevity and stability as one of the reasons why it is so successful. Regarding the alignment with the New Legislative Framework, the stakeholders’ attitude is largely positive. The participants to the LVD Working Party Workshop considered that the new definitions integrated to LVD are clear and helpful – other aspects were not mentioned in this context. One of the four EU-level industry representative expressed disappointment that the alignment with the NLF had introduced uncertainty to the sector as well as some additional administrative costs as “even slightly updating a label can have large costs”. However, no further data was discovered to support this. The products under the scope of LVD interact with a series of other Directives which regulate aspects other than safety and might apply in conjunction with the LVD. For the great majority of the stakeholders, they do not perceive significant incoherence. However, interactions with the RED, MD and GSPD Directives are perceived as creating significant challenges. Where the Directives have different responsible authorities, the change of scope means that the responsibility to test the product suddenly falls on an authority that may not have the required specific training or testing equipment for the type of product in question. Some of the Low Voltage Working Party Workshop attendees suggested that the Directives should be geared at different types of risks rather than being specific to certain areas of the industry. Others suggested merging the Directives, however, there was no consensus on whether this would be a positive or negative change. Particularly the business representatives expressed concerns towards decreased clarity for economic operators. In addition, no significant incoherence was perceived with the Union legislation that regulates the safety of products which are listed in Annex II of the LVD (exclusions) but, as stated above, better clarity might be needed in Annex II. ·Coherence with the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU (RED) The RED establishes a regulatory framework of radio equipment (i.e. equipment which communicates with radio waves). When RED is applicable, the LVD and EMCD are not applicable. However, RED shall ensure the protection of health and safety of persons and of domestic animals and the protection of property, including the objectives with respect to safety requirements set out in LVD, but with no voltage limit applying. The addition of radio functionalities to “traditional products” do push the products to go out of the scope of LVD and be subject only to RED. Opinions expressed in the LVD Working Party Workshop as well as standardisation authorities interviewed, expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that introducing Wi-Fi connection automatically moves an appliance from the LVD scope to RED scope. Potential safety risks of those products remain largely the same, relating to their LVD related aspects rather than IoT aspects. It was suggested that the designation could be done based on their main function. For example, in the case of a smart fridge the main function would be to cool (which imply to keep it under the LVD), rather than the use of radio communication (which would indicate moving to the scope of RED). Correlating to the above, according to the respondents to the online survey the overlaps in scope between the LVD and other legislation (notably RED) is a problematic issue for 42.5% of the stakeholders (“great extent” or “some extent”). But for the 56% of the survey respondents this is not a problem at all, or just to a “limited extent”. The opinions of different stakeholder groups responding to the stakeholder survey are illustrated in the figure below. This problem was also observed during the LVD Working Party Workshop. Clarity about the scope of the LVD has an impact on several aspects, and as underlined by national authorities, one of these consequences is the variance in effectiveness of market surveillance activities across the different EU Member States. Figure 24 – Q3 all respondents: "A number of products falling under LVD scope also fall under other legislations. To what extent do you consider this is a problem?" Source: Evaluation Study, stakeholder survey The opinions on a possible merge between the RED and the LVD are quite divided across type of stakeholders: manufacturers and business organisations are overwhelmingly against a merged legislative act. Indeed, they consider the LVD as best practice example of a safety Directive and, on the contrary, the RED was described very negatively due to, for example, additional costs deriving from notified bodies (when relevant) or provisions of additional documents such as a copy of the EU declaration of conformity or by a simplified EU declaration of conformity, and the obligation on packaging as mentioned above. On the other side, three consumer organisations and six national authorities see the merge more beneficial. Among cited possible benefits of a merged Directive are a greater harmonisation and a better capability of taking into account technological developments: with the rise of Internet of Things, the connected products need to be safe both at software and hardware level. Several EU Member States participating in the LVD Working Party Workshop also noted that a new unified Directive would potentially lead to additional administrative burden. Figure 25 – Q4 all respondents: "To what extent merging the scope of the LVD with the EMCD, the RED and the Terminal Equipment Competition Directive into one single act could facilitate implementation of these legislations?"

Source: Evaluation Study, stakeholder survey While stakeholders gave credit to the latest LVD guidance document on how to cope with RED overlaps, industry and national representatives in one EU Member State suggested that besides the specific Directive guidelines, overall guidelines on the interaction of different Directives would be needed. ·Coherence with the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC (GPSD) The GPSD applies to consumer products in so far there are not specific provisions with the same objective in the EU sectorial legislation. That Directive aims to ensure that only safe consumer products are sold in the EU. GPSD only applies in the absence of more specific provisions in the LVD and in Regulation 765/2008/EC (which applies at the same time with, and as a complement to the LVD). Stakeholders discussed the interaction between the LVD and the GPSD in the context of products below the LVD minimum voltage limit. Issues are reported to arise from consumer battery-powered products that are below the LVD’s lower limit. These products currently fall under GPSD. This, in turn, requires distribution of competences between authorities within a Member State which is an internal issue due to the fact that the EU legislation does not prevent the same authority to deal with products under both the LVD and the GSPD. ·Coherence with the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC (MD) The MD is a total harmonisation Directive, for the aspects and products it covers, based on the New Approach to technical harmonisation and standards. It covers all hazards that come from machinery, including electrical hazards. However, according to the MD, the safety objectives set out in LVD shall apply to machinery, while obligations concerning conformity assessment and the placing on the market and/or putting into service of machinery with regard to electrical hazards are governed by the MD (Essential Health and Safety Requirement 1.5.1). The MD clarifies the borderline between its scope and the LVD and certain categories of electrical and electronic machinery products are hence excluded from the scope of the MD, namely household appliances intended for domestic use; audio and video equipment; information technology equipment; ordinary office machinery; low-voltage switchgear; and control gear; electric motors . The first category “household appliances” designates equipment intended for typical housekeeping functions such as washing, cleaning, heating, cooling, cooking, etc. The appliances “intended for domestic use”, (i.e. for use by private persons in the home environment) fall under the scope of LVD and not under MD; on the contrary, those household appliances intended specifically for commercial or industrial use are included in the scope of the MD and so excluded from the LVD (but MD refers to the safety objectives of the LVD). The interaction with MD was mentioned by some stakeholders at the LVD Working Party Workshop as a coherence issue. The fact that for certain product categories the Machinery Directive does not provide a definition creates some (incidental) confusion as to when to take the end use as domestic or industrial (e.g. with laundry machines or 3D printers). This was seen as less of a problem with LVD, but rather with the MD, especially relating to the definitions or lack thereof of the latter. One national standardisation body also noted that the inclusion of a list of risks in the MD to solve the issue of determining which of the two Directives applies for which risk does not fully clarify the issue. This stakeholder suggested using standards and guidance documents to solve the problem. The Machinery Directive has been revised and the Commission adopted on 21 April 2021 a proposal for a Regulation on machinery products. Among other changes, the proposal reinforces the coherence with the LVD by considering the fact that electrical and electronic products excluded from the Regulation will be also excluded from the Radio Equipment Directive when they incorporate wi-fi. The proposal is subject to ordinary legislative procedure, to be adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. ·Coherence with the WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU and the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU The WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU (waste electrical and electronic equipment) aims to contribute to sustainable production and consumption by preventing the creation of WEEE as a first priority, contributing to the efficient use of resources and the retrieval of secondary raw materials through re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery, and improving the environmental performance of everyone involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) The RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU (restriction of the use of certain hazardous substance in electrical and electronic equipment) aims to prevent the risks posed to human health and the environment related to the management of electrical and electronic waste. It achieves it by restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in EEE that can be substituted by safer alternatives. These restricted substances include heavy metals, flame retardants or plasticizers. The Directive promotes the recyclability of EEE, as EEE and its components that have become waste contain fewer hazardous substances. At the same time, it ensures a level playing field for manufacturers and importers of EEE in the European market. In January 2017, the Commission adopted legislative proposals to introduce further adjustments in the scope of the RoHS and the WEEE Directives. The vast majority of products that fall within the scope of the LVD also fall within the scope of RoHS and WEEE Directives. Since 2019 any product which meets the EEE definition falls under the scope of the RoHS Directive. However, several product groups are excluded from the scope. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer, importer, or any other economic operator involved to assess whether his tool or installation benefits from an exclusion. Where a combination of equipment, components and sub-assemblies is being brought together or combined and placed on the market as a single piece of equipment or a manufacturing process line, then consideration could be given to application of other directives such as the EMCD, LVD and MD. Due to the nature of the definitions, assigning broad types or classes of equipment to products’ category is not possible. Decisions are to be taken on a case-by-case basis considering all criteria in each definition. Even though no significant issues relating to the interaction with the RoHS and WEEE Directives has been explicitly reported, it appears that the definition of ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ offered by some of the other Directives (such as RoHS) is sometimes used as substitute for interpreting the LVD, which offers no such definition.

Findings in relation to the EU Added Value of the LVD The LVD aims to eliminate barriers and ensure free movement of (compliant) products on the single internal market, as well as to ensure safety of those products. As such, its purpose is to avoid fragmentation of safety standards and to realise the internal market for products in its scope. The majority of all stakeholder categories consulted also consider that the LVD has improved the safety of electrical products in the EU to a significant extent. The majority of stakeholders view positively the role of the LVD in facilitating the free circulation of compliant products within the internal market LVD ensures the safety of products and eases the launch of products, particularly compared to the situation where each Member State would have its own system in place. And the stakeholders consider that LVD provisions imply a low to medium burden. Regarding the objective of ensuring safety of electrical products in the internal market, the majority of all stakeholder groups consider that the LVD is “very relevant” for ensuring the safety of electrical products. Standards are widely reported as the most widely used and also the most preferred method for ensuring the compliance of electrical equipment. According to the stakeholders, the standards ensure the convergence of state-of-the-art practices across the EU, as well as the safety of products by formalising the essential safety requirements. The stakeholders also credit the fact that LVD also facilitates cooperation through the AdCo and the Working Party, allowing for discussion and change of views between national authorities and economic operators, creating synergies, facilitating the exchange of best practices and sharing of experiences, allowing for refining and clarifying the common rules and practices. Such communication platforms with similar level of authority and geographical reach would be more difficult to create outside the framework of an EU level legislation. Without EU-level action, it is possible that safety standards and/or procedures for addressing dangerous products could differ between EU Member States, although the extent of diversity of approaches is challenging to establish. In any case, this could hinder the cross-border market of products, and information on dangerous equipment spread in different countries would not automatically be shared as widely and comprehensively. In addition, consumers could not rely on uniform safety standards across the EU. As discussed in section “Analysis of the LVD market”, the intra-EU market is growing in volume, highlighting the importance of common regulation.



8CONCLUSIONS There is a consensus among all stakeholders that overall the Directive has successfully contributed towards its objectives by facilitating the free movement of electrical equipment across the Union and protecting consumers' and users' health and safety. Regarding its general objectives related to internal market and health and safety, the LVD can be considered fairly effective. Factors hindering the full achievement of its objectives are mostly external to the Directive. Concerning the Directive’s effectiveness for the internal market, the LVD is generally seen as contributing to an effectively operating internal market for electrical equipment in its scope. It removes regulatory and procedural barriers to trade, thereby facilitating intra-EU trade among economic operators by establishing a set of harmonised rules and procedures for electrical equipment throughout the EU. To that end, harmonised standards are confirmed to be an effective means to ensure Directive’s adaptability to market trends, including technological innovations. No major cases of discrepancies have been detected across EU Member States in interpreting the requirements of the LVD for particular products. Market surveillance and conformity assessment procedures are seen as areas for improvement in ensuring the Directive’s effectiveness in the future. Market surveillance is not considered effective in implementing and enforcing the LVD. The development of e-commerce adds additional challenges to LVD enforcement as it leaves room for uncompliant products not being intercepted, therefore, affecting the level playing field on the internal market.. Market surveillance is outside the remit of the LVD. However, with the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance, which enters into force on 16 July 2021, the issues related to enforcement, identified by the evaluation, will be tackled. Regarding the procedures for conformity assessment, the absence of the possibility of using third party may be seen as not helping the SMEs. In general the SMEs seek support and guidance for conformity assessment due to lack of means e.g. laboratories/expertise or for competitiveness reasons. Regarding the Directive’s effectiveness for health and safety, the opinions of stakeholders are rather positive regarding the contribution of the LVD to the safety of products. Though highlighted by some stakeholders, the absence of third party involvement for assessing the conformity of low voltage products is not seen as having a negative impact on the safety by majority of manufacturers, consumers associations and business associations. This opinion is a bit more nuanced among importers, retailers and national authorities (around half of them). Some stakeholders, such as consumer organisations, expressed concern on the extent to which the current conformity procedures are effective enough for riskier products, wondering whether all products should have the same procedure, or whether a distinction between risk-levels would be more appropriate to prevent accidents (current self-certification for low-risk products and third-party certification for products with higher risks). However, the LVD currently does not make such distinction. Harmonised standards are seen as the best method to ensure safety compliance of the electrical equipment given that the essential safety requirements of the Directive are considered generic and succinct by stakeholders. Finally, as stated above, issues with market surveillance also impact health and safety objectives. Concerning the efficiency of the Directive, the benefits generated by the LVD outweigh its costs for each type of stakeholders – including national authorities, economic operators (irrespective of their size of place in the value chain) and consumers, both individually and as a whole. According to both economic operators and consumers, the requirements related to marking and documentation are affecting the efficiency of the Directive given that they do not facilitate the use of internet-related solutions in combination with information on the product/in manuals. The costs related to standards are estimated between 1 and 5 % of the annual turnover. Economic operators acknowledge the importance of standardisation and they feel that the costs are high in proportion of the benefits. However, this factor is outside the scope of the LVD. The remaining of the costs (procedural compliance costs, administrative costs and specific resource costs) for economic operators are viewed as less problematic. The objectives of the LVD are still relevant today. This is true for both objectives ensuring the health and safety of persons, domestic animals and property, and ensuring free circulation of compliant products within the internal market.

The LVD reduces safety risks for consumers as only products that are safe and compliant are put on the market. For most economic operators (producers, trad