COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

on the accessibility of public sector bodies' websites

Disclaimer:

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1............ Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties. 1

1.1.......... Introduction. 1

1.2.......... Organisation and timing of the Impact Assessment 1

1.3.......... Consultation and expertise. 3

2............ Context and background. 5

2.1.......... Web-accessibility. 5

2.2.......... The market for web-accessibility. 9

2.3.......... European standard under preparation. 10

2.4.......... Policy context 10

3............ Problem definition and need for action. 13

3.1.......... Problem definition. 13

3.2.......... Drivers to the problem. 15

3.3.......... Who are most affected by the problems. 16

3.4.......... How the situation would evolve if no action is taken - Baseline Scenario. 18

3.5.......... EU right to act and evidence of the EU added value. 20

4............ Objectives. 24

4.1.......... General objectives. 24

4.2.......... Specific objectives. 24

4.3.......... Operational objectives. 24

5............ Policy options. 24

5.1.......... Policy Option 1: Baseline scenario – no change in policies. 24

5.2.......... Policy Option 2: Adoption of a Recommendation ('soft law') 25

5.3.......... Policy Option 3: Legally binding measure. 25

5.4.......... Proportionality. 28

5.5.......... Discarded options. 29

6............ Analysis of the effects of the possible initiatives. 30

6.1.......... Policy Option 1 – no change in policies. 30

6.2.......... Policy Option 2 - recommendation. 32

6.3.......... Policy Option 3 – legislative measure based on Internal Market 33

7............ Comparison of options. 40

7.1.......... In terms of the economic impacts. 40

7.2.......... In terms of the political impacts. 41

7.3.......... In terms of social impacts. 41

7.4.......... In terms of environmental impacts. 41

7.5.......... Multi-criteria Analysis. 42

7.6.......... Preferred option. 44

8............ Monitoring and evaluation. 44

8.1.......... Success criteria. 44

8.2.......... Associated indicators. 44

8.3.......... Prospective evaluations. 45

9............ Annexes. 46

Annex I : Glossary. 46

Annex II : Summary of public consultations. 49

Annex III : Other relevant policies and actions in the EU and Member States. 61

Annex IV : WCAG and Realizing e-Accessibility. 64

Annex V : Overview of figures and data sources. 66

Annex VI: Calculations and methodology. 69

Annex VII : Benefits of increased web-accessibility. 73

Annex VIII. Simple simulation of the effect of economies of scale in the authoring tools and web accessibility markets 76

Annex IX : National surveillance: accessibility assessment procedure. 78

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

1.1. Introduction

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), including the internet, are major drivers of economy and society. The Internet economy, for example, is today larger than that of energy or agriculture. As part of the Internet domain, web-accessibility is a major contributor to the development of a knowledge-based society, to economic growth, and societal inclusion.

Web-accessibility refers to principles and techniques that, when considered in the making of a website, render its content accessible to all users, in particular those with disabilities including functional ones.

The market for web-accessibility related products and services is still immature but growing. Member States are well engaged into web-accessibility and governments could make a considerable contribution to this growth and to mainstreaming Web-accessibility.

However, a harmonisation of national measures at EU level has been identified as necessary to unlock the unrealised potential of the internal market of web-accessibility products and services. It would encourage economic operators (web-developers), in particular SMEs, to consider business ventures outside their own domestic markets, and help them to elaborate more competitive service offers, as well as to concentrate resources on innovation rather than adaptation to national measures.

The resulting momentum in the market will contribute to allow both website owners and web-developers to contribute to economic growth and jobs creation in the EU. Governments and other institutions will benefit from more and better offers while contracting web-accessibility related services. Strengthening the single market will increase the interest for investments in the EU.

Ultimately all citizens, in particular those with disabilities, will benefit from better access to a wider range of online services and from exercising their rights to receive services across the EU, notably when exercising their rights to move and reside freely within Europe.

1.2. Organisation and timing of the Impact Assessment

An Impact Assessment was carried out as part of the policy-making process, and in November 2011, a draft Impact Assessment report was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board of the Commission for examination. Responding to the resulting recommendations, a revised draft was submitted in Januray 2012. The Board's final opinion contained the following recommendations, which were considered in this present report.

(1) Better explain the context and the problems to be addressed

corroborate the evidences on market barriers and potential economies of scale for the market players;

indicate the websites that will be affected and who will benefit from the initiative; justification on the limitation to public sector websites;

substantiate the expected spill-over from the public to private sector websites.

(2) Better demonstrate the case for EU action

address subsidiarity issues and the value added of EU action;

explaining will deliver on web-accessibility compared to the baseline scenario;

present the different views of stakeholders and Member States.

(3) Broaden and deepen the discussion of the options

explain lack of further feasible substantive policy options;

reinforce the presentation of the newly introduced sub-options.

(4) Further improve the assessment of impacts and comparison of options.

(5) Different stakeholder views should be systematically referenced throughout the text.

For (1):

With regard to evidences on market barriers, an updated overview on the highly heterogeneous landscape of national legislations related to web-accessibility is presented, and so, how this hinders the well functioning of the internal market. The presented anecdotal cases were confirmed via studies.

It should be noted that the availability of relevant data is limited since the market for web-accessibility is still emerging. Stakeholders at all levels have been contacted repeatedly; in addition, civil organisations were extremely engaged in supporting this data-gathering and fully used their apparatus to let their members and other contacts take part.

Additional explanations on potential economies of scale were included in 'Section Market Problems'. In addition, a reasoning on the 'economy of scale' to be achieved by suppliers (web-developers) and the benefits to the buyers (public authorities) was included in 'Section 6.3.2 Assessments of Impact and benefits' as well as in 'Section 6.3.3 Sensitivity analysis'. Simulations (evidences) were presented in a newly created Annex VIII– Simple simulation of the effect of economies of scale in the authoring tools and web accessibility markets presents simulations.

With regard to the scope of the intervertion in terms of types of websites, additional explanations were included in 'Section EU Added-value'. It should be remarked that, in principle, the main objective of the proposal for action is to harmonise the national legislations and measures. Provisions requesting the making of websites accessible represent a way to secure a minimum implementation of such a harmonised approach, and to help leveraging the market ("public expenditures are proven catalyst to influence general market conditions and to boost the uptake of technologies"). This section also presentes that a full implementation (including private sector websites) is not within the scope of this proposal . The 'Section Deferred suboption: extending the scope to cover other types of websites' has been included.

With regard to the expected spill-overs, additional explanations were included in 'Section 3.3.1 Website owners' and 'Section EU Added-value'. Essentialy, the argument is that if such a number of regulated web sites become accessible, both the general offers for website development and the specifications for general web procurement might come to increase somewhat the inclusion of accessibility by default.

For (2):

The 'Section 3.5 EU right to act and evidence of the EU added value' has been further elaborated for addressing both the subsidiarity issues and the value added of EU Action. Additional explanations on the delivery on web accessibility compared to the baseline scenario and explaining the advantages of pursuing web accessibility at EU level were included.

The views of the different stakeholders and Members States, as well as the respective effect on each of them were considered and presented throughout the report.

For (3):

Two new policy options, which had been considered during the impact assessment exercise, are presented in separate sub-sections. One is related to the choice of the delivering instrument; this could be considered as tangible option, but there are contra arguments in terms of the current policy context. The second is related to the scope but, as explained, it has been discarded for not being realistic.

The presentation of the newly introduced sub-options was reinforced and the relevant background provided in 'Sections 5.5.2 Extension to authoring tools' and '5.5.3 Extension to assistive technologies'.

The choice of a Directive instead of a Regulation (as the delivery instrument) has been further explained in 'Section 5.3 Policy Option 3: Legally binding measure'. In addition, having the binding option delivered by a Regulation was also assessed as a different option in a new 'Section 5.3.1 Considered proposal for a Regulation as legal delivery instrument'.

For (4):

The analysis for all the options was further extended and their non-/feasibility explained in the respectives sections.

The views of and effects on the different stakeholder were more systematically referenced throughout the text.

1.3. Consultation and expertise

An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) led by Directorate General for the Information Society and Media was established in April 2010 with a wide representation of services and departments of the Commission. This included the Secretariat-General, the Legal Service and the Directorates-General Communication; Economic and Financial Affairs; Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; Enterprise and Industry; Eurostat; Health and Consumers; Informatics; Internal Market and Services; and Justice. Its task has been to analyse and discuss the different issues and perspectives relevant to a proposal for action.

A number of analytical studies and consultations have been carried out with a wide range of stakeholders, to support the identification of problems and needs. They addressed a large range of stakeholders, including representatives from Member States, industry and major civil society organisations.

These consultations and studies are listed below, and a summary of conclusions and references of some exchanges with external stakeholders is provided in Annex II.

Overview of consultations of external stakeholders

(1) Benchmarking Study 2010-2011 – “Monitoring eAccessibility” (MEAC-2)[1] provides new and updated information, including detailed country profiles, following up on MEAC-1 (see (5)). It concluded that no significant changes in the overall status took place.

Study on “Economic Assessment for Improving e-Accessibility Services and Products” (SMART 2009/00-72) analysed the costs and benefits of web-accessibility, and developed a 'Business Case Tool' to estimate the implementation costs of web-accessibility, according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. This tool has been used in this Impact Assessment[2].

(2) Public Consultations and workshops on web-accessibility (2008). Consultation workshops with Member States’ representatives and other stakeholders concluded that an EU-level intervention on web-accessibility would be unanimously appreciated, and

(a) there was a risk of further divergence of national approaches to equal access without binding intervention by the European Commission;

(b) an EU-level intervention might help to provide the necessary focus to overcome differences among existing national legislation;

(c) Member States representatives concluded that a common approach of the deployment of web-accessibility was necessary.

Furthermore, through the Commission’s interactive Internet platform “Your voice”, a consultation was carried out under individuals, civil organisations, experts, public authorities, business and industry associations. Nearly 95 % of the responses supported a common European approach for the accessibility of public sector websites and websites providing services to citizens. About 50% of the respondents were of the opinion that binding legislation has a high priority

(3) Survey - “Web-accessibility in European countries: level of compliance with latest international accessibility specifications, notably WCAG 2.0, and approaches or plans to implement those specifications” (SMART 2008/0068). The results demonstrated the significant divergences in specifications, efforts, and approaches undertaken by each Member State (see table from the study in Annex II).

(4) Benchmarking Study 2006-2008 – “Measuring Progress of eAccessibility in Europe” (MEAC-1). This study showed that insufficient progress has been achieved in web-accessibility.

(5) Study “E-accessibility legislation, implementation and market monitoring” 2007-2008. The study monitored the status and progress in e-Accessibility in selected countries and provided information as to the approaches, practices and the impact of e-Accessibility measures.

1.3.1. Direct consultations of the Member States and other relevant stakeholders

(1) i2010 e-inclusion subgroup. The i2010[3] e-inclusion subgroup has discussed web-accessibility at most of its thirteen meetings (from 2006 to 2010)[4]. Member States voiced recommendations on common guidelines and definitions for web-accessibility. They recommended to apply WCAG 2.0 AA as the harmonised (de-facto) functional and technology-neutral specifications.

(2) Post-i2010 public consultation. Most of the 834 respondents underlined the need to improve the acceptance of electronic systems in general, and consumer organisations emphasised the need for strengthening e-accessibility.

(3) Members of the INCOM (Inclusive Communications) working group of the Communications Committee (COCOM), provided updated information on web-accessibility-related legislations and measures in their respective Member States.

(4) Other direct consultations. Direct consultations and meetings were carried out during 2011 with industry representatives and major civil society organisations such as the European Disability Forum (EDF) and the European Blind Union (EBU). Exchanges with large software industries and European industry associations were held under condition of non-disclosure of sources. Their inputs confirmed assumptions and anecdotal cases presented in the next chapter of this report. To note is that, in June 2011, those civil organisations issued a “Proposal for a Legal Act on Accessible Websites”[5].

1.3.2. Internal consultations

The Impact Assessment Steering Group met four times between April 15th 2010 and May 5th 2011, and e-mail exchanges proceeded to elaborate and review the impact assessment roadmap and report.

2. Context and background

This chapter gives insights in the concept of Web-accessibility and refers to widely accepted guidance for implementing it. It also describes how significant accessible websites are for both their owners and users, in particular if used for the exchange of essential information and services such as those from the public sector.

It presents accessible websites as the product entailed in economic operations between website's owners and suppliers (enterprises acting in the web-accessibility market segment). Survey results reveal considerable differences in provisions related to web-accessibility across the EU, which creates entry barriers and hinders the growth of this market. Hence, this chapter also suggests that, for internal market objectives to be attained, web-accessibility should be ensured according to 'common elements'.

Lastly, this chapter presents relevant actions such as the preparation for an EU standard, EU initiatives and legislations, as well as national and international initiatives, which could contribute to promoting web accessibility.

2.1. Web-accessibility

Web-accessibility refers to principles and techniques for making websites accessible to all. Web-accessibility concerns websites and their content, web browsers, and assistive technologies (such as screen-readers). The most widely accepted functional specifications for web-accessibility are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (see Annex IV); its first version, WCAG 1.0, became available in 1999 and the latest, WCAG 2.0, in 2008. These are used by Member States as the basis of their national standards and regulations, but with various modifications.

The adequate implementation of these accessibility specifications allows websites' users to perceive and understand the content, navigate the website and make use of the respective information or service provided on-line. Furthermore, it ensures that browsers and assistive technologies can interact consistently and intelligently with the website. These guidelines do not impose specific technical solutions and, as a consequence, they are intended not to be made obsolete too soon by the rapid new technological developments.

Websites that comply with web-accessibility criteria have a higher degree of usability for all users, considering that anyone may be subject to functional disabilities, such as mobile internet users in noisy or glaring environments, elderly with lower dexterity. According to surveys, 60% of adults at working age would benefit from accessibility features[6]. Web-accessibility is a condition sine qua non for many people with functional limitations that come with ageing (24% of the EU-27 projected population will be 65 or over by 2030[7]) or health-related impairments (some 15% of the EU population).

Owners of websites that apply web-accessibility find that they attract more visitors and customers for their online information and services. They also profit from the fact that certain web-accessibility features help the respective websites to be prioritised by Internet search engines (which implies a higher chance to be selectedby citizens and consumers).

2.1.1. Web-accessibility in the public sector

Hereafter, the following existing terminology is used. A public-sector body can be the State, regional or local authorities (public administration), or bodies governed by public law which are financed for the most part by the State[8]. A public sector website is a website owned by a public sector body. A website is a coherent collection of webpages that together provide common use or functionality.

The Internet is becoming the preferred way for governments to provide all their citizens with information and public services. Some of the latter are essential for the civil participation and cannot be obtained from other sources, for example, as certificates, permits, income tax declarations. Going on-line allows governments to offer their citizens services in a more cost efficient and convenient way, allowing all parties to benefit fully from the growing possibilities of egovernment.

An important success factor for reaching 'every' citizen is the accessibility of the information or services offered on-line, regardless whether the device employed by any of the users is on a fixed PC or a mobile phone, or any other appliance to access the Internet.

Public sector bodies are under increasing pressure to make their websites accessible, due to national legislations or policies, proven efficiency gains, public pressure, and the positive prospects of an extended reach, as well as the need to fulfil their public responsibilities.

We estimate that public sector websites make up at least 2% of the total number of websites in each Member State or at least 4 % of private sector websites (see Annex VI for more details). Table 1 below provides an estimation for the number of websites concerned in the EU-27.

Public sector + Private sector + others || 38.080.000

Public sector + Private sector || 19.801.600

Private sector || 19.040.000

Public sector || 761.600

Table 1 Estimated number of websites in EU-27 per sector category.

A significant number of Member States (21) have already either enacted legislation or taken other measures on web-accessibility. Other Member States will probably follow as the majority of the Member States have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[9] A further impulse is provided by the Commission's commitment to web-accessibility in the Digital Agenda for Europe and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020.

Nevertheless, there are significant and evident differences among the Member States with regard to legislative approaches, and most legislation is weakly enforceable. Table 2 presents a summary inventory and Table 3 gives an overview of the divergence, based on direct updates by Members States representatives in December 2011[10].

|| Obligation or concrete target specified || Specified time frame for achieving obligation/ target

Legislation (e.g. equality law) or other concrete policy measures aimed at web-acccessibility || AT, BE, BU, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, FI, IT, LT, NL, PT, SI, UK, MT, RO, SE, SK, PL || AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, IT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK

No known web-accessibility policy in place || CY, EL[11], IE, LU, LV[12], HU[13]

Table 2 Overview of legislation and other measures directed at the accessibility of public sector websites.

Dimension || Member States

Type of approach || About half of the Member States have imposed direct legislative/regulative obligations on website owners (including soft law such as parliament resolutions). Prominent examples include AT, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, MT, NL, PL, SK, UK. Some countries have equality or other legislation in place that has given a more indirect stimulus to web-accessibility efforts, for example, BE, IE. The remainder have addressed web-accessibility through non-legislative measures of various types (e.g., ministerial resolution, action plan), for example, DK, FI, LT, PT.

Websites covered || The majority of Member States focus only on public sector websites in their direct measures on web-accessibility. The available evidence suggests that the scope of coverage of public sector websites varies; some Member States include all levels of government and public entities, whereas others, only directly address central government. Intranets are rarely addressed in an explicit manner. In the few cases where commercial websites are directly addressed (e.g. DE, IT, PT), this tends to be of a softer, more 'encouragement' type of approach.

Timeframe for web-accessibility || About one-half of the Member States have implemented a specific timeframe within which web-accessibility is to be achieved, with time horizons ranging from 2005 to 2011. The timeframe of the DAE is 2015 for the accessibility of all public sector websites. In some countries (e.g. DE, NL, SK, UK), new websites are given an immediate deadline whereas existing websites are given some time to adapt.

Accessibility requirements || WCAG 1.0 guidelines represent a major reference point in almost all Member States that have taken some type of interventional measure. Some countries have developed variants, based on national norms and/or the US section 508 standards (e.g. CZ, IT, NL, SE). Most countries refer to WCAG 1.0 single A and/or double A requirements; triple A requirements are referenced to a lesser extent. The WCAG 2.0 guidelines have been rarely addressed so far (exceptions with on-going updating actions: DE, IT, MT and SE).

Support for web owners || A number of countries have implemented dedicated “flanking measures” to support web owners in the implementation of their accessibility-related policies; these tend to focus on three key aspects – awareness raising, networking of relevant actors, and organisational capacity building.

Enforcement || Enforcement is not explicit in the majority of countries. It tends more towards “persuasion”, e.g. through award schemes or “naming and shaming”. Sanctions for non-compliance are only apparent in a few countries (e.g. UK, ES, IT, SK).

Conformity assessment || In the majority of countries, conformity assessment schemes have not been put in place. So far, they have been set up as part of a dedicated government policy only in a few Member States (e.g. AT, DK, NL, IT, MT). In some countries, voluntary web-accessibility labelling schemes have emerged, operated by NGOs or commercial parties.

Monitoring || Benchmarking of accessibility of websites has been identified in less than half of the Member States with annual benchmarking as a rare exception. The various monitoring efforts are difficult to compare across countries, as they vary a lot in terms of scope (e.g. number and types of websites sampled) and methods applied (e.g. accessibility criteria applied, self-evaluation vs. external evaluation).

Table 3 National approaches related to web-accessibility.

The different approaches among the Member States create barriers in the internal market.

In addition, in spite of all initiatives, the accessibility of public sector websites is still low. In 2007, the benchmarking study MEAC 1 (see section 1.3.1) showed that only 5% of public sector websites were accessible when tested manually. In 2010, the follow-up study MEAC 2 (see section 1.3.1) selected eight governmental websites per country on different administrative levels that target interaction with citizens; and it found that 39% were web-accessible. However, these figures were generated with a different method. For calculation purposes in this document, we assume that currently one third (33%) of public sector websites are compliant.

2.1.2. Web-accessibility in the private sector

The accessibility of private sector websites is still low as well. The benchmarking study MEAC 2 selected per country a handful of much used commercial websites with public relevance such as public transport, banks, newspapers and other media, and found that 18% of them were web-accessible. For purposes of market estimation, it is assumed that only 9% of the business sector are accessible.

Nevertheless, important private sector examples show that realising web-accessibility can bring considerable benefits[14]. The following two cases can illustrate this[15].

– When the financial firm Legal&General redesigned its website to be fully accessible, it achieved an increase of 30% in search engine traffic; an additional 13.000 visitors per month thanks to improved browser compatibility (including mobile and handheld devices); and an increase of on line sales of 95%. Within 6 months, the firm had a 100% return on investment, and the company saved £ 200.000 annually (or 66%) on site maintenance.

– Tesco, an online grocery supplier in the UK, produced the Tesco Access site using a panel of visually impaired shoppers. By having Tesco.com and Tesco.Access side-by-side, all users could finally benefit from '15-minute shopping' (purchase 30 items over a slow internet connection in 15 minutes or less). Although originally designed for visually impaired users, the Access site attracted a much wider audience. The development of the accessible site costed £35.000, but on line sales increased by £13 million per year. For little extra cost, the use of the site could be extended to other devices, such as PDAs with low speed connections and/or limited screen sizes. As a next step, Tesco has developed a new and unified main Website which is fully accessible, further reducing maintenance costs[16].

The examples indicate that, beyond fulfilment of public sector responsibility, there are many other benefits that can entice also the private sector to invest in the accessibility of their websites, giving an even larger impulse to the web-accessibility market.

2.2. The market for web-accessibility

In 2009, the website developers market (calculated as the sum of the economic activites, NACE Rev 2 classes J6201 - Computer programming activities and J6312 - Web portals)[17] consisted of some 175.000 enterprises in the 27 EU Member States. It employed some 842.000 people and the generated turnover was € 144 billion (Source: Eurostat). Table 4 below provides estimates for the web-accessibility market, based on the total number of websites in EU and on a low and a high estimate of website size and complexity[18]. The calculation of the size of the Web-accessibility market takes into account the daily fees of developers in each of the EU27 Member States. For estimation purposes, the market size is based on current compliance levels of 33% for public and 9% for business websites, as discussed in the previous two sections.

Current EU web-accessibility market estimates (EUR) || Low estimate || High estimate

Public sector || 179 million || 428 million

Private sector || 1,221 million || 2,915 million

Public and private sectors || 1,400 million || 3,343 million

Table 4 The EU web-accessibility market.

The EU web-accessibility market is estimated to be around € 2,0 billion, but realising less than 10% of its potential.

The harmonisation of the national provisions, as presented in Table 3, has the potential to lead to market growth and jobs, increased take-up of web-accessibility, and to make web-accessibility drastically cheaper – a triple win for governments, businesses, and citizens.

2.3. European standard under preparation

The Commission has issued a Mandate (M/376)[19] to the European Standards Organisations to support the use of accessibility requirements in public procurement of ICT products and services. The outcome of this mandate shall be a standard (EN), specifying the functional accessibility requirements for ICT products and services, including web content and authoring tools. Documentation and a toolkit for procurers will also be provided. Accessibility experts, industry, national representatives of standardisation bodies, and representatives of both users and consumers associations participate in this process. The formal adoption procedure of the EN standard is expected to start in the third quarter of 2012. It is intended that the EN will be based on WCAG 2.0 in the area of the web and will become a EU reference document leading to harmonistaion of national standards.

It is important to note here that the existence of a standard is not sufficient for guaranteeing its adoption in relevant provisions; it has to be enforced.

2.4. Policy context

The following sections present the EU initiatives and legislations, which are related to this proposal for action. Where appropriate, a short reasoning on the relevant circumstances and the potential contribution to the desired effects of this proposal are presented.

Encouragements and commitments for web-accessibility

Since the early 2000s, governments have made many political pledges to improve the accessibility of their websites.

(1) In the eEurope Action Plan and the subsequent 2001 Communication on web-accessibility the European Commission urged the Member States to adopt common accessibility specifications (WCAG) for public sector websites. Council stressed the need to speed up accessibility to the Web with two Council Resolutions[20], and encouraged Member States to require developers to implement WCAG 1.0.

(2) In 2002, the European Parliament suggested all public sector websites to be fully accessible to persons with disabilities by 2003 conform WCAG[21].

(3) Two Commission Communications – “eAccessibility” (2005)[22] and “Towards an accessible information society” (2008)[23] – called upon Member States to cooperate and foster industry self regulation. The possibility of a legislative proposal – if necessary – was mentioned.

(4) In 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee issued an Opinion[24] on the 2002 Communication, calling on all Member States to formally adopt the latest version of the WCAG for all public sector websites. In September 2011, the Committee issued an opinion[25] on the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 that stated: “The mainstreaming of accessibility will contribute to the EU's competitiveness and economic recovery by creating new markets for assistive goods and services and new jobs”.

(5) In June 2006, the 'Riga Ministerial Declaration' was approved at the Ministerial Conference “ICT for an inclusive society”[26]. This committed the Member States to promote and ensure accessibility of all public websites by 2010 through compliance with WCAG.

(6) In 2009 Council Conclusions on the accessible information society[27] invited the Member States to “apply accessibility criteria in their public procurement of ICT goods and services, including web-accessibility requirements. […]Implement the provisions of the UNCRPD [..].Adopt, and better implement measures, to promote e-accessibility, and particularly to implement the WCAG 2.0 guidelines.” It proposed a common approach to avoid “a fragmented European market”.

(7) Within the Europe 2020 Strategy,[28] the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE)[29] announced: “The Commission will, based on a review of options, make proposals by 2011 that will make sure that public sector websites (and websites providing basic services to citizens) are fully accessible by 2015”.

(8) The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 contains a number of initiatives to improve accessibility, including to the web.

(9) The eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015[30] set as one of its aims for 2015 to stimulte the development of services designed around user needs, that ensure inclusiveness and accessibility, amongst others, by “supporting effective and concrete accessibility solutions, compliant with relevant European and international standards when available.”

(10) With the intention to lead by example the Commission evaluated the conformance of a selection of its websites to WCAG.[31] The result indicated a “Medium-High” accessibility level. According to its Information Providers Guide[32]: “as from January 2010, all new 'Europa' websites should be created in compliancy with the latest WCAG 2.0 level AA”.

(11) EU funding programmes (e.g., FP RTD, CIP-ICT PSP) support R&D and stimulate innovation on web-accessibility. Other means such as studies and platforms (like e-Practice[33]) support the monitoring of web-accessibility progress and implementation in the Member States, as well as the exchange of good practices.

2.4.1. Existing EU legislation

Some EU legislation supports 'accessibility' in general but does not provide for harmonised conditions for the web-accessibility market (see Annex III for details):

(1) Public Procurement Directive (2004/18/EC)[34]. A proposal to update this Directive (adopted by the Commission on 20 December 2011[35]) strengthens the accessibility provisions by stating that: “For all procurement the subject of which is intended for use by persons, […] technical specifications shall […], be drawn up so as to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users,” and “Where mandatory accessibility standards are adopted by a legislative act of the Union, technical specifications shall, as far as accessibility criteria are concerned, be defined by reference thereto.”

(2) Structural Fund Regulations require to observe accessibility in all stages of expending the funds.

(3) Future 'European Accessibility Act' as announced in the Commission Work Programme for 2012 under item 99, for which the impact assessment work is ongoing, aims to improve accessibility of goods and services in the Internal Market.

2.4.2. National and international legal acts

From 2000 onwards, several Member States took actions on web-accessibility based on WCAG 1.0 and some Member States are updating these now, in the light of WCAG 2.0, the new version of the guidelines. Countries like DE, NL and UK have taken substantial initiatives. However, differences between Member States persist and even increase. In spite of the recognised qualities of the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, new differences emerge in terms of criteria or comformance levels (A, AA or AAA; see Annex IV). Additional criteria were added for specific disabilities (see section 3.2.1), while a number of WCAG 1.0 variations still exists.

Germany, for example, recently sent a notification (2011/0070/D – SERV60)[36] to the Commission on “applicable standards” for Internet sites in the draft of their new “Barrier-free Information Technology Regulation”. This states that the technical provisions to be applied are principally based on the international guidelines ('Web Content Accessibility Guidelines - WCAG 2.0'). However, variations were introduced to these guidelines. Italy also recently sent a notification (2011/297/I) to the Commission on the amendment of a legislation establishing criteria and methods for the technical checks and technical accessibility. The described requirements refer to the WCAG 2.0 but there is no explicit reference to a level of compliance (for instance, 'AA').

At United Nations level, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)[37] provides new momentum for actions on e-accessibility and will help boosting the relevant market segment. Article 9 requests State parties to take appropriate measures to ensure, on equal basis, the access to ICT systems and services provided to the public. The Convention is a legally binding Treaty, concluded by the EU and ratified by the majority of the Member States. Its implementation is a key goal of the EU Disability Strategy 2020. Nevertheless, it does not specify implementation deadlines for the specific topics in the different application domains.

3. Problem definition and need for action

This Chapter describes the problems regarding the web-accessibility market, the underlying drivers, and those affected by these problems. In addition, it describes how the current state of affairs would evolve if no further action were taken, and the EU right to act. In describing the problem, three actors are considered: web-developers (providing websites and web-accessibility solutions), website owners/buyers (in particular public administrations), and users of websites (i.e. citizens).

3.1. Problem definition

The main persistent problem regarding web-accessibility is the non-functioning of the internal market for the provision of web-accessibility. This negatively contributes to the still very poor level of accessibility of the websites providing services to the citizens.

3.1.1. Market problems - non-functioning of the internal market

Web-developers suffer from a huge unrealised market potential for web-accessibility, because of market barriers in the form of complex market conditions, and different regulations on a national or even regional level. These differences are mirrored in the wide variation of technical provisions in calls for tenders, which raise barriers for operating cross-border. For example, a company willing to bid on public contracts has to deal with different standards and has to master several different and changing market and regulatory conditions. For SMEs in particular, the cost burden imposed by such fragmentation might be prohibitive. Providers of tools for web-accessibility (like authoring tools or automatic checkers), face the additional barriers of having to implement all these specifications in their tools.

Furthermore, if web-developers employ non commonly adopted specifications in the coding of a website, then assistive technologies (such as a screen reader) might not be able to interpret the web content or to control user interface components. Hence, the interoperability of these assistive technologies is negatively affected. This causes losses to suppliers and buyers of web-accessibility related products and services, as well as to the users (citizens), who would not be able to employ their user agents ubiquitously to access websites, and eventually, benefit from increased choice and reduced prices across the EU.

Hence, fragmentation is a significant market barrier, and potential market growth is not realised. Based on the public consultations, the impact of the divergences on the web development market can be summarised as follows:

· Concept: different interpretations of what is considered accessible due to different rules.

· Business model: different requirements regarding specifications, conformity assessment and certification schemes lead to barriers for internationalisation.

· Competitive advantage: (i) extra resources spent on learning how to apply each national legislation are charged to the client, making quotes higher than from a local competitor; (ii) accessibility of the supplier's own website represents a differential element.

· Liability: a product (on-line service) could be considered as 'accessible' in one country, and therefore not discriminatory. In another country, the same service could default to the reference standard and the provider might find itself in court.

· Market size: missed economy of scale when doing R&D, developing products/tools or training and marketing material, if not on a global market. Corresponding gains could be partly reflected also in lower prices for the buyers.

To illustrate this, some reported concrete cases and complaints provided during public consultations are summarised here[38]:

· Some countries require the websites of bidders for public procurements to be accessible according to their national specifications, or consider this as an advantage in the award criteria (e.g. Spain with 'Plan Avanza'). Hence, in addition to learning and adaptation costs, web-developers would have to create different websites, one for each country where they intend to sell their goods and services.

· While Ireland, Italy and Denmark require compliance to WCAG2.0 level AA, The Netherlands (with Web Guidelines 2.0) and Germany (with BITV 2.0) have introduced requirements that go beyond WCAG 2.0 AA. In the UK, there are no nationwide technical requirements and so, different public sector departments use different accessibility requirements.

· Not enforced standard results in higher production costs and longer implementation times for web-accessibility as well as for related authoring tools.

· “The use of regulation to improve technological accessibility will be most effective when it is globally 'harmonized' and embodies a consistent set of expectations and objectives. If multiple conflicting regulations emerge, it would become technically and economically difficult for vendors and their clients to support them and could create a disincentive to participate in certain markets. The end result is that the user does not benefit, and may have less choice and significantly increased costs”[39].

· “Divergences in legislative approaches wherever they occur – whether between Member States of the EU or between the EU and the rest of the world – represent a fundamental challenge to the ability to make accessible tools available. Barriers include increased go-to-market costs for products and services, non-availability of some products in certain countries, increased implementation times and also the associated costs of overcoming these barriers. The availability of accessibility expertise for testing and training resources to help people new to accessibility to develop skills, is also limited by legislative divergence – with harmonized standards expertise can cross political boundaries to help bridge gaps in local capacity. ”

Providers of assistive technologies may be confronted with (unfair) claims from consumers because of a lack of interoperability of their technologies, resulting in different and disruptive user-experiences in different countries.

For website owners or those commissioning websites, limited competition implies higher a cost of websites, as well as the risk of remaining vendor locked, which implies high maintenance and switching costs. Due to non-harmonised national approaches, website owners are limited in their possibilities to share experiences with peers and to pool efforts in responding to the dynamic technology developments.

For public administrations with a service obligation to all citizens, the lack of web-accessibility requires them to maintain costly alternative channels such as call centres or physical counters. Finally, differences lead to uncertainty about the choice of which 'web-accessibility’ specification to implement for cross-border services as promoted by the eGovernment Action Plan.

3.1.2 Problems for citizens - poor accessibility of websites providing services to citizens

Progress in web-accessibility remains slow, as has been shown in Sections 2.1.2. and 2.1.2. Citizens that have no acces to websites are forced to seek alternative access, for example, by going to a physical counter (where mobility is also often a severe barrier for them), or by using offline mail. This takes time, money, and effort, and it exposes them to the risk of being excluded from certain services altogether.

Specific web-accessibility features may cause problems to assistive technologies if the former are not implemented according to widely adopted specifications. Hence, users with disabilities would not be able to fully access essential or sometimes vital services abroad like emergency information.

3.2. Drivers to the problem

The drivers to the problem of slow progress of web-accessibility in the EU are twofold: fragmentation and uncertainty. The persistently identified fragmentation is the result of the different approaches to web-accessibility among the Member States (and also at global level). Uncertainty is fed by lack of agreement on common specifications on the part of national authorities and business actors. Both drivers are related to and influenced by:

(1) Websites that do not migrate to WCAG 2.0 fast enough or fully and, therefore, still function on the basis of old specifications with many national variations.

(2) Member States wanting to apply higher or lower levels of compliance (e.g. AAA, respectively A) for some websites.

(3) Member States with policies that cluster accessibility with other quality criteria for public sector websites, e.g. with a focus on usability[40], causing confusion with unwanted market distortion as a consequence.

(4) The many political declarations on web-accessibility without effective follow up, as well as the economic crisis have contributed to a declining focus on web-accessibility on the political agenda.

(5) Lack of possibilities for cooperation and sharing of best practices between public authorities from different Member States.

(6) Lack of a clear legal framework.

3.3. Who are most affected by the problems

The sections below describe the three actors that are most affected by the problem (web-developers, public administrations, citizens).

Private parties – web-developers

Within the sector of ICT expertise provision, the most relevant enterprises for this assessment and proposal for action are those performing activities such as:

· Computer programming, in particular designing the infrastructure and content of, and or writing of computer code to create and implement web pages; customising of software (NACE code 62.01)[41]

· Computer consultancy, in particular the planning and designing of computer systems, including related users training (62.02)

· Data processing, in particular application service provisioning (63.11)

· Software publishing, in particular translation or adaptation of non-customised software for a particular market (58.29)

Their profile is very similar to that of the 'ICT consultancy' sub-sector,[42] where in 2006 micro enterprises (1-9 employees) represented more than 94% of all enterprises and 30% of total employment in ICT consultancy. A number of 517.368 enterprises had 1-9 employees; 27.689 10-49, 5.206 50-249, and 989 had over 250 employees.

The web-developers market can be described as an ecosystem with a large proportion of SMEs. In this ecosystem harmonised web-accessibility specifications could make a positive contribution as they allow web-developers to achieve economies of scale, to grow into the larger EU market, and to innovate.

The non-harmonised national approaches create unfavourable market conditions for SMEs (as described in section 3.1.1) and raise barriers for large enterprises, such as those offering authoring tools. The fragmentation results in higher development and marketing costs for their products and services. Therefore, business entities need to (be enabled to) reduce costs of web-accessibility activities and to be freed from the burden of trade barriers and different national web-accessibility rules when they want to compete crossborder; and, thereby, be enabled to gain access to a wider European market in a cost-effective way.

3.3.1. Website owners

Some citizen-oriented services are of particular value to both public administration and citizens. Fot the purpose of egovernment benchmarking in 2001, Commission and Member States issued a list of basic public services on line aimed at citizens[43]:

· Income taxes

· Job search services

· Social security benefits

· Personal documents (passports / driver's license)

· Car registration

· Application for building permission

· Declaration to police

· Public libraries

· Certificates

· Enrolment in higher education

· Announcement of moving

· Health-related services

The availability of these basic public sector services is high, but their accessibility, definitely not, as confirmed by the conducted surveys. Public service providers, a major part of relevant website owners or commissioners, are negatively affected by the diversity of the web-accessibility approaches, as mentioned in section 3.1.1. Hence, it is assumed that a policy proposal aimed at this core set of essentail and well defined websites will have an immediate (spill-over) effect on all other public sector websites.

Moreover, the lack of web-accessibility exposes governments to criticisms, because they do not fulfill their national legislations and social responsibility, or simply because of non-efficient practices. In the USA for example, on these grounds disabled citizens have raised litigations against federal, state, and local governments, and even against the private sector (e.g. Apple, Amazon and the large retailer Target).

Concluding: website owners need clear guidance on standards and guidelines for web-accessibility, in order to avoid unnecessary cost and to enable a cost efficient and effective implementation of their policies for and commitments to eGovernment, public procurement and web-accessibility.

3.3.2. Citizens – website users

As indicated above, public-sector websites increasingly contain critically important information and services for daily life, education, and work. It is difficult to estimate the number of affected citizens, but one can observe the enormous increase of people relying on mobile Web-based applications while on the move. In 2006 it was estimated that 60% of EU citizens would benefit from adequate e-accessibility[44].

Non-accessible websites create undue access barriers and exclude people from the conveniences, opportunities and savings that on-line services bring. All citizens are affected but persons with functional limitations including persons with disabilities in particular. A Commission study[45] estimated them at about 84 million in Europe. Of these, 34 million are aged 65+ and about 36 million have a combination of severe functional limitations. Another EC study[46] makes an extrapolation showing that up to 60% of EU’s 50+ population can be expected to be functionally restricted. The affected population can be extended to all people with cognitive, learning or language challenges. As an indication, it is estimated that "about 4% of undergraduate students in the UK have a learning disability"[47].

The proportion of digitally excluded people with functional limitations has not yet been measured in Europe. In the USA, 54% of disabled people use the Internet against 81% of the non-disabled population[48] and in the UK, the numbers are 41% against 75%.[49] In the USA, 28% of disabled non-users state that their disability makes internet use difficult or impossible[50]. The democratic divide (or civil exclusion) will grow in keeping with the growing use of the internet by public administrations.

For society in general, the overall loss or gain of benefits depends on the potential increase of reach of websites, once web-accessibility is in place.

Concluding: citizens need to obtain barrier-free access to online information, services and other on-line facilities across Europe.

3.4. How the situation would evolve if no action is taken - Baseline Scenario

Proceeding with existing policies and current actions as they are, means that with relation to web-accessibility the EU would:

(1) continue to raise awareness and disseminate ideas, opportunities, and solutions through communications, events, thematic networks or platforms;

(2) continue benchmarking, monitoring, having dialogues with Member States and other stakeholders, and gathering evidence through studies;

(3) continue the development of a European standard in the context of the mandate 376, leading to a EN ( European reference document);

(4) continue to implement web-accessibility in its own websites;

(5) carry on supporting R&D and innovation on web-accessibility through its funding programmes;

(6) continue to promote and support involvement of users and their organisations in all theses actions;

(7) reinforce the Member States' commitment to UNCRPD, and the industries efforts to deploy WCAG 2.0 as well as the Commission-adopted proposal for a new Public Procurement Directive (see Section 2.4.2) .

In spite of all these points, both the pressure for compliance and the timeline would remain uncertain. In addition, despite the merits and achievements of these measures, studies and consultations show that this approach over the past ten years has not been able to resolve the problems and remove the drivers behind these. The following sections present reasoning on the situation in case such a baseline scenario is maintained.

Economic dimension

Suppliers / enterprises and web-developers: A widely accepted specification for implementing web-accessibility (such as the existing WCAG 2.0 or the European standard being developed under mandate M/376) will contribute to an easier, more cost efficient and harmonised uptake of web-accessibility. Yet, the actual uptake would still depend on voluntary actions. Without mandatory and enforceable rules and deadlines, barriers will continue to exist for cross border entrepreneurial activities and the market would grow slowly at most and may even regress.

The lack of mandatory web-accessibility based on harmonised criteria means that companies supplying web-accessibility solutions have reduced business opportunities in the home, the European and also the international market, with low economies of scale and little opportunity for competitive and more attractive pricing as a consequence. Owners / procurers / public administrations: The continued lack of a common approach on web-accessibility would hinder European governments in realising accessible and inclusive cross-border egovernment, to which they are committed.[51] Due to the recent economic crisis there is a pressure on public administrations to be more (cost-)efficient, e.g. by offering services on line. Without web-accessibility in place, governments would have to invest an estimated € 30 million[52] for every 1% of citizens that do not interact with governments online, because they would have to continue to provide public services at a physical counter, by mail, by phone, or in the form of Braille printouts.

Consumers / end-users/ citizens: All people with functional limitations – and probably most citizens - will lose time and money if web-accessibility is not in place. The value of the time EU citizens lose if they cannot access public services online, has been calculated to range from € 150 million to 600 million, given a reach of just 5 to 20% of all those with disabilities.[53]

Finally, web-accessibility design lends itself for job creation across Europe, in particular for people that are naturally sensible to the problem: the people with disabilities themselves. The unrealised potential of such a service is demonstrated by initiatives such as "Fix the Web"[54]; where disabled persons report accessibility problems and volunteers take these issues further with website owners.

3.4.1. Social dimension

A considerable number of Europeans risk exclusion from the opportunities created and facilitated by the Internet, if the uptake of web-accessibility lingers. The social cost (in terms of reduced quality of life and personal fulfilment) would be considerable, given 84 million people with functional limitations, that would risk being excluded from participating in many aspects of economy and society. The fragmentation of web-accessibility approaches and specifications may also limit the 'right of receiving services' for citizens depending on web-accessibility features in their own country that are not implemented in other Member States.

3.4.2. Policy dimension

At governmental level, fragmentation could increase if the implementation and enforcement of policies fail, and if a systematic sharing of specifications (standards) and goals is not ensured.

Presently, many national actions depend on voluntary commitments, and they are under threat because of present budget pressures.

As their Web presence grows, the urge for governments to provide alternatives to non-accessible web content will increase, with the corresponding risks of providing poor or no alternatives.

3.5. EU right to act and evidence of the EU added value

EU-action is needed to ensure the availability throughout the EU of high quality products and services for web-accessibility and to ensure the functioning of the internal market. As the market segment for Web-accessibility is still not well established, now is the right time to act in order to mitigate problems and lay down settings that would lead into a much larger growth.

There are actions being taken within each Member State that contribute to the growth of this market. However, recalling the results of the conducted analysis and survey (see section 2.1.1 and 3.1.1) major differences in nature and content of these actions (e.g. technical provisions or standards referred in legislations) create barriers for enterprises aspiring to offer their services in several EU countries.

A measure at EU level is needed for the approximation of the different provisions laid down in the Member States in order to create better conditions for the functioning of the internal market.

EU Added-value

Action at EU-level, including a dialogue for further compatibility at world level, is the most efficient way to address the main problem: fragmentation. It would provide the missing link to render existing policies at Member States as well as EU levels more effective and their implementation less expensive.

It would greatly help to deliver web-accessibility according to existing political commitments, including that of the DAE. It would ensure the effectiveness of the introduction of the European Standards for accessibility developped under Mandate 376 (see section 2.3). Furthermore, it would greatly complement the effect of the upcoming European Accessibility Act, and facilitate the implementation of the new public procurement directive.

If fragmentation around web-accessibility is removed, the suppliers – web-developers – would encounter lower entry barriers in other countries; and might improve their competitiveness and achieve a considerable economy of scale. For the buying parties – public administrations – more and better service-offers from the part of the web-developers plus collaboration among themeselves on relevant policies would make cheaper going oline in an accessible form. Citizens would benefit from the increased availability of more usable on-line services, and citizens with functional limitations would be able to exercise their right to receive these services.

A reason for limiting the scope to public sector websites is that public expenditures have been proven catalyst to influence general market conditions and to boost the uptake of technologies to some extent. The public sector as such constitutes already a likely secure and sizable market for web-developers, given the growing shift from public authorities towards the online provision of information, services and transactions. An extension of the scope to private sector websites (at least those providing basic services to citizens such as transport and banking) would without a doubt boost the market addressed by the EU action. However, a full and mandatory implementation and control of the EU action is not within the scope of this proposal.

Nevertheless, if accessible public sector websites become the default offer for website development, as well as a regular award criterion from procurers, a 'spillover' to web-developers and private sector contractors might happen. In any case, the proposal for action did consider the option to extend the scope to other types of websites (including private ones) however, it was discarded because the Commission is already looking into these issues in the context of the preparation of the European Accessibility Act. In adition, it will leave the Member States the freedom to extend the list of public sector websites concerned according to their needs and existing legislations. Further impetus - as highlighted by the European Parliament - might be gained when also accessibility specifications for authoring tools become available.

3.5.1. Legal basis

The EU "shall adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market," according to Article 114.1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). On the basis of this article, the Union has the right to act on web-accessibility, given the link between the first problem identified in this Impact Assessment (disrupted and too-slow emerging market) and the objectives of this Article, and in the view of the shared competences between the Union and the Member States. Thus, this article forms the legal basis of the proposal that is discussed in this impact assessment. It would allow for direct reference to harmonised standards on web-accessibility, whose lack, as analysed, is the key factor contributing to fragmentation.

See section 5.5 for the discarded option of a measure based on ' anti-discrimination' , based on article 19.1.

3.5.2. Subsidiarity

In examining whether an EU action on web-accessibility would be justified, the following criteria were applied:

Necessity test: transnational aspects that cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by Member States actions:

· As described in 2.4, the many Member States measures on web-accessibility have not provided the boundary conditions for a mature and effective market for web-accessibility products and services. If the action would remain restricted to national level only, approximation of national measures and coordinated implementation of harmonized specifications would not be achieved, and comparability of progress would be difficult. Fragmentation, lack of interoprability, and uncertainty would not be removed.

· Actions by Member States alone, or the lack of Community action, would significantly damage the interests of Member States. The national divergences put burdens and barriers on companies and citizens that try to act across borders. This limits the perspectives for a mature public market for web-accessibility products and services, with as possible results e-exclusion and mobility constraints to a considerable portion of the population.

Efficiency test: a more efficient use of resources would be achieved by jointly adhering to common specifications (lower implementation cost), by participating in a European cooperation scheme for the sharing of good practices and expertise on required updating as a consequence of technological developments.

· The effectiveness of any web-accessibility action would be greatly enhanced by a joint European approach. Positive European feedback loops (such as joint comparison of progress) would prevent or counter further fragmentation of the emerging market for public web-accessibility products and services. This would speed up the implementation of web-accessibility.

· An EU-wide adoption of the reference specifications would yield higher competitiveness in the market for web-accessibility services and products.

· Finally, the EU and Member States could quicker adapt to new technological developments. The preparation of European functional specifications (as the expected outcome of M/376) contributes to this approach.

To avoid subsidiarity infringement, the focus of the action on web-accessibility should be on a small set of issues: functional requirements for web-accessiblity, harmonisation of scope and timing of depoyment. These should be agreed upon at European level, leaving the maximum of discretionary options to the national, regional, or local level.

3.5.3. Consistency with other EU policies

The European Digital Agenda is one of the flagships of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, aiming at high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. Effective action on public web-accessibility contributes to at least 3 of the 5 EU-2020 objectives: employment, innovation, and social inclusion.

The proposed EU action on web-accessibility would in the first place contribute to the size, efficiency and effectiveness of the market for web-accessibility services for public sector websites. This could make a considerable contribution to the global competitiveness of companies in the field of web-accessibility. At present, web developers and providers of authoring tools from the USA are advantaged over their European counterparts because of the adoption in the USA of harmonised and mandatory specifications. A more mature market for public web-accessibility might influence positively adjacent markets such as the market for private web-accessible products and services, and the markets for website development in general, to some extent. All in all, this would be a considerable stimulus for an internationally competitive and innovative single digital market, in line with the first pillar of the European Digital agenda. Mainstreaming of web-accessibility would contribute to a more inclusive European knowledge-based society.

The proposed intervention would contribute to existing commitments related to economic growth, competitiveness, the digital single market, e-inclusion, equality and overall e-accessibility, as set by the DAE, the eGovernment Action Plan, the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, the proposed Public Procurement Directive and the UNCRPD (see also the section 2.4).

3.5.4. Regulatory convergence with other major trading partners

The policy option proposed in this report would lead to regulatory convergence with other major trading partners, given that the proposed harmonisation approach with M376 will align with international developments (WCAG) and with those of major trading partner the USA, where most ICT companies are active. Harmonization according to WCAG 2.0 in the context of Mandate 376 would enjoin the EU market with other major markets including the USA, Japan, Australia, Canada, and other countries that have also requirements based on WCAG 2.0.

Industry has pledged for common specifications between the USA and EU via the transatlantic dialogue (TEC 2011). In the USA web-accessibility is mandatory for public procurement of federal websites since 1998 (according to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act). The reference specifications are presently being updated[55] to take into account new technologies and web specifications. The current draft (published December 2011) makes direct references to functional requirements of WCAG 2.0 level AA[56].

In the USA, the industry has reacted positively to the regulation, because the guidelines provide for transparent competition in terms of functional requirements. The US industry is presently cooperating in the development of the EU standards under M376. Under the EU-US dialogue on standarisation, there have already been exchanges of views during the production of the (USA) 508 refresh text and the execution of the (EU) Mandate 376, that both address web-accessibility in line with the work of W3C on WCAG. Other countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand[57] have also moved to use WCAG2.0. Finally the WCAG2.0 functional specifications have now been submitted for ISO recognition via the PAS process.[58]

4. Objectives

The following objectives (expected effects or impacts) for action on web-accessibility can be identified, on the basis of the previous chapters.

4.1. General objectives

I. || Improvement of the functioning of the Internal Market for the specific market segment for the supply of web-accessibility-related products and services.

II. || Supporting commitment relating to web-accessibility in public sector websites laid down in the Digital Agenda for Europe and further related policy initiatives, the European Disability Strategy or legal acts (notably UNCRPD).

4.2. Specific objectives

III. || Establish a harmonised EU standards in considering websites accessibility in relevant national and EU approaches

IV. || Definition of types of websites concerned, with a minimum common list

V. || Promoting the web-accessibility of websites beyond those of the types belonging to the ' basic public services', as well as supporting capacity building and changes in the website development process to sustain a behavioural change towards 'web-accessibility.'

4.3. Operational objectives

VI. || Achieve regular and comparable monitoring reporting

VII. || Achieve collaboration on accessibility measurement and metrics, costs/benefits measurement, certification, responses to technological evolutions, exchanging good practices, and common indicators

VIII. || Achieve full web-accessibility in the public sector websites that are present in a common list and were newly created after the adoption of this intervention

IX. || Achieve by 2015 web-accessibility of websites that are present in the common list and already existed before the adoption of this intervention

The achievements on these objectives will be monitored and assessed in evaluation activities (see Chapter 8), for which evaluation criteria and indicators are defined.

5. Policy options

This chapter examines the three main policy options that have been identified.

5.1. Policy Option 1: Baseline scenario – no change in policies

The baseline scenario means continuing all actions as in Section 3.4 of this report, such as: current best practice support to public administrations in Member States, cooperation on standardisation actions, performing EC studies into state of play, and EU support to R&D. Under the baseline scenario, we also assume:

· the adoption of the revised Public Procurement Directive with strengthened provisions on accessibility requirements;

· the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD);

· the modernisation of national specifications according to WCAG 2.0, though in often fragmented ways.

· The development of an EU harmonised standard under M376

5.2. Policy Option 2: Adoption of a Recommendation ('soft law')

This option concerns the adoption of a Recommendation expressing a common approach for Web-accessibility, in particular the implementation of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0 level AA). The Recommendation would:

· provide specifications defining a 'harmonised level of web-accessibility' equivalent to the WCAG 2.0 level AA;

· specify a minimum list of types of public sector websites concerned –the so called 'basic public services' (see Section 3.3.1) that should be made accessible to trigger the accessibility market growth

It would also:

· invite Member States to refer to the defined harmonised level of web-accessibility in the adoption, revision, and implementation of legislation concerning web-accessibility;

· recommend Member States to ensure that the websites concerned are accessible in accordance with the specified harmonised level of web-accessibility; and (where possible) that compliance with this specification should be considered in the award criteria at the public procuement of website development services;

· recommend Member States to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are set up for relevant web-accessibility policy and for consultations in this area with relevant entities from the private sector as well as with citizens and organisations representing them;

· recommend Member States to create programmes that foster capacity building on web-accessibility.

5.3. Policy Option 3: Legally binding measure

The third option is a legally binding measure based on article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to establish a framework in support of a harmonisation of national rules and existing practices of the Member States on web-accessibility. It shall provide for the implementation of web-accessibility principles and techniques, in accordance with a harmonised level of web-accessibility for a predefined set of public sector websites.

The measure would:

· Ensure an approximating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on web-accessibility.

· Specify the minimum set of public sector web sites to be concerned (as specified in Section 3.3.2), with a possibility for each Member State to extend the approximated provisions to other types of public sector websites.

· Specify what the common requirements for web-accessibility are, and use available channels for recognising and referring to relevant standards (notably a EU harmonised standard under M376) or specifications, in line with the usual approaches regarding presumption of conformance ("new approach") and considering both the currently proposed new channels for "ICT standards" and if necessary directly the W3C normative material.

It will state that Member States:

· Shall bring into force their laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2014 in order to apply these measures by 31 December 2015.

· Are participating via their standardisation organisations in the definition of a harmonised European standard under M376, or (if this channel has to be used) via a Multi Stakeholder Group or Committee as foreseen in the currently proposed, new channel for recognising additional "ICT standards".

· Shall participate in a Committee on Web-Accessibility, with advisory and regulatory procedures depending on the matter handled

(a) to select the standard to be used for providing presumption of conformance with the requirements for web-accessibility,

(b) to define the monitoring methodology for regular conformance verification

(c) to define the reporting modalities

· Shall deploy additional measures

(a) to ensure that information about the accessibility of a website concerned is clearly visible on the website.

(a) to support consultations mechanisms with stakeholders and for making public the policy developments.

(b) to promote that other public sector websites, such as those providing other basic services to citizens, are accessible using the same requirements.

(c) to cooperate at European level with industry and civil society stakeholders, to exchange best practices and to review market and technological developments and progress.

· Shall report annually on the results of the conformance monitoring and the additional measures.

A Directive would be the appropriate instrument, given the flexibility with which it would provide Member States. It would allow them to extend the minimum list of types of public sector websites, and would respect the fact that some Member States already have related legislations in place. It is up to the Member States to put in force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.

The choice for a Directive over a Regulation is motivated by the fact that Regulation allows Member States less flexibility to adjust the implementation to already existing policies and to extend – if they so wish – the list of public sector websites concerned. Furthermore, proportionality might not be violated because many of the implementation parameters such as the organisation of monitoring and handling of complaints would be left to the Member States. It would probably imply a more costly burden of approximation, especially for those Member States that already have legislation in place.

Deferred suboption: extending the scope to cover other types of websites

This suboption would include extending the scope of the proposal by specifying additional types of website concerned, for instance those providing 'basic services to citizens' (e.g. transport) regardless whether they were public or private.

During consultation especially civil organisations like AGE, ANEC, EBU, and EDF called for this extension. In addressing them, the proposed intervention would be fully coherent with the commitment expressed in the European Digital Agenda, to "[…] make sure that public sector websites (and websites providing basic services to citizens) are fully accessible". Furthermore, it would promote the Web-accessibility market segment even more. However, it would be difficult to define the boundaries of the relevant service-categories, and full implementation will take longer.

The proposed legal measure, however, provides the Member States with a basis for further extension. In the form of the request to 'promote accessibility according to the harmonised level of other public sector websites', Member States could effectively extend the scope of the measure as well as maximise spillovers for example by supporting translation in local languages of the harmonised web-accessibility specifications and associated toolkit, by praising or awarding organisations and companies that apply harmonised web-accessibility; by requiring harmonised web-accessibility in all public procurement of websites and web-applications on inter- and intranet. They could extend this public procurement measure to all websites that are partly funded with public money, and they could require that the authoring tools and content management systems for the self-building or maintenance of websites and applications comply with the harmonised web-accessibility specifications. These issues are being looked at in the context of the preparation of the European Accessibility Act.

This option has not been discarded altogether though, as Policy Option 3 would allow the Commission to modify – if needed - the minimum list of public sector websites concerned in line with ex-post evaluations of the proposed measures if for example the European Accessibility Act would not include these issues(see section 8.3).

5.3.1. Considered proposal for a Regulation as legal delivery instrument

Proposing a Regulation would lead to matching national legal acts, which would facilitate references, consultations, and revisions concerning web-accessibility at EU level; and the proposed provisions would not be transposed into national laws, regulations and administrative provisions in different domains (e.g. within an 'Equality Act' in one country and within an 'Information Technology Directive' in another). On the other hand, a Regulation would provide less flexibility to Member States and imply a more costly and less proportional burden of approximation, especially for Member States that already have legislation in place.

A Regulation would have immediate enforcement; hence, it would anticipate positive effects on the internal market and possibly bestow more assurance upon the reaching of timely dependent commitments (recalling the DAE). However, web-developers would incur considerable compliancy costs on a very short term (for example, for updating tools, training, and materials) to be able to continue operations in their own country of residence, even if they would still not be interested in internationalisation.

5.4. Proportionality

In Option 3, proportionality is observed by limiting the proposal to a minimum list (of types of) public sector websites concerned, giving the Member States the option to extend this list as they wish. Furthermore proportionality is taken into account by leaving many of the implementation parameters such as enforcement, monitoring and complaints handling fully to the Member States. Table 5 presents 'mandatory and optional elements' for Option 3 and the effects on the Subsidiary and Proportionality principles.

Element || Mandatory / Optional || Affecting

Proof of compliance with web-accessibility specifications || Optional: compliance approach (e.g. supplier-declared compliance or self-certification, third-party certification) || Subsidiarity

Methodology for assessing accessibility || Mandatory: common, as specified in this measure and periodically reviewed by delegated act || Subsidiarity

Reporting at EU level || Mandatory: web-accessibility status including degree of web-accessibility according to common measurement methodology || Proportionality

Relevant public sector websites (websites concerned) || Mandatory: minimum list of websites concerns as specified by this measure (or updated by delegated act) Optional: more extensive list of websites concerned, through additional national list || Subsidiarity, Proportionality

Compliance date for newly built websites || Mandatory: upon entry into force || Subsidiarity

Compliance date for existing websites || Mandatory: 2015 Optional: before 2015 || Subsidiarity

Complaints and suggestions handling || Optional: to have a mechanism in place for accessible online submission of complaints and suggestions || Subsidiarity Proportionality

Cooperation || Mandatory: cooperation with EU-level stakeholders involving industry representatives (ICT companies and providers of basic services), and citizen/consumer organisations on common EU-level reporting and implementation measures. || Subsidiarity

Table 5 Elements of option 3

The use of the proportionality approach in Option 3 would not hinder Member States to adapt their web-accessibility situation to their national context, but at the same time the proposed Directive will have enough impact to trigger a substantial positive spillover effect.

5.5. Discarded options

Legally binding measure based on anti-discrimination

A legally binding measure based on Art. 19.1 of the TFEU has been considered with a view of putting in effect in Member States equal treatment for online participation and countering (in)direct discrimination on the grounds of limited functionality because of disability or age. The purpose was also to comply with related policy commitments, for example, UNCRPD.

Due to the legal basis, such a measure would only define the principle of 'web-accessibility', and not address a 'harmonised level of web-accessibility'. The anti-discrimination legal option has been discussed within the IASG. It was considered attractive to address the availability of web-accessibility for the group of people at risk of discrimination, but it was agreed that it would not correlate to the problems to be solved and not contribute to abate growing regulatory and market fragmentation. It would merely add to the anti-discrimination measures[59], whereas harmonisation (or de-fragmentation) is the missing piece in the process to achieve an efficient web-accessibility market (see also section 3.5.1).

Finally, the focuses on discrimination of individuals due to their disabilities would narrow the approach of the measure, as any action on web-accessibility should be of interest and beneficial to every citizen.

5.5.1. Use of public procurement legislation

The proposal COM(2011)896 for a revision of the Public Procurement Directive (2004/18/EC)[60] (adopted by the Commission on 20 December 2011) states that "For all procurement the subject of which is intended for use by persons whether general public or staff of the contracting authority, those technical specifications shall, except in duly justified cases, be drawn up so as to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users."

Despite the role for public procurement to leverage a broader uptake of web-accessibility, the obligations derived from the Public Procurement Directive are not sufficient. It would help making public sector websites accessible, but it would not directly establish common web-accessibility criteria and so would fail to address market fragmentation. Moreover it would not establish targets such as deadlines for achieving web-accessibility and it would not put in place the monitoring and cooperation which are necessary to adequately react to ongoing market and technology developments. Furthermore, its impact would be limited, as it would not address non-procurement situations such as in-house development and maintenance and update of content (which are typically done in-house).

5.5.2. Extension to authoring tools

As a sub-option has been considered to extend the scope of the intervention to the harmonisation of functional specifications for web content authoring tools or accessibility checking tools, and their applications. The owners of the websites concerned would be requested to consider these when building or procuring such tools.

This approach would increase the prospects of achieving web-accessibility even for (non-procured) in-house created websites. The accessibility of the authoring tools themselves could open up employment possibilities for developers with disabilities (as indicated earlier in this document and also noted by the European Parliament).

It should be noted that the Mandate 376 (see section 2.3) also covers the standardisation of functional specifications for authoring tools (as the USA did it in the draft revision of their Section 508 rules). The current proposal for revision of the Directive on Public Procurement, if adopted, could help ensuring their deployment. Factually, the W3C/WAI is currently finalising such specifications (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines-ATAG 2.0).

This option has been discussed within the IASG, and the conclusions were that additional information would be needed to asses the proportionality of such an extended intervention.

5.5.3. Extension to assistive technologies

The option has been considered to develop a measure that would (also) cover the third large element of accessibility (after web content and authoring tools); the capability of browsers and assistive technologies to access content. These devices and software need to be up-to-date with the evolution of web technologies to be able to access content.

In theory, it would be possible to assess this topic for the work-place, e.g. via public-procurement policies. However it is much more complex for other wider contexts targeting the citizens at large, as the service models for assistive technologies to access the web, vary too significantly per Member State (as regards actors, coverage level and type of support).[61]

It is not possible to conceive a mandatory intervention that would ensure that the population concerned would be equipped with up-to-date browsers and assistive technologies. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile monitoring the state of equipment of the population concerned. Also Member States should take this into consideration when developing policies to support on line activities of people with disabilities and older people, as internet access and web interfaces become ever more essential for communication and interaction. In addition, presently, with the ongoing the EC-supported modernisation of the EASTIN portal of assistive technologies, incentives are put in place for AT vendors to make better and more affordable products and disseminating more efficiently information about them.

6. Analysis of the effects of the possible initiatives

This chapter assesses the costs of the policy options for different impact areas and actors.

6.1. Policy Option 1 – no change in policies

Economic impact – Web-developers

In the Baseline Scenario described in previous sections, the market for web-design will remain fragmented in terms of approaches for web-accessibility. This causes two types of costs to the industry:

· a loss in the value of online content that is not or not easily accessible for a wider public, nor easy to adapt to other access devices (eg. 'web on mobile'), in case no (tailor made) solutions are implemented;

· additional costs for web design because web developers have to confront non-harmonised accessibility requirements in case of fragmented solutions.

Web-developers would face a smaller domestic demand, and high entry barriers for cross-border sales (with additional costs to adapt their bids to national specificities[62]).It would be uncertain if SMEs could profit from a growing market for web-accessibility, as they might not be able to achieve the economies of scale needed to compete with larger companies. Large enterprises might be better able to cope with adaptation to the market condition, either because they have resources of their own, or by subcontracting schemes (yet with additional costs to suit fragmented markets).

Economic impact - Member States

Member States with legislation for web-accessibility in place: unless multilateral initiatives for cooperation are taken, Member States could not benefit from sharing knowledge and approaches, because of persisting differencs. Member States would also suffer from supplier lock-in (see also section3.1.1) and not benefit from enhanced competition in the web-designing market, including the supply of web-accessibility tools and services.

Member States without legislations on web-accessibility, or legislation addressing just a small part of the websites concerned: these Member States would continue facing high costs for off-line support (via counters or helpdesks) for citizens who are unable to access their websites. These costs will increase in proportion to demographic changes (e.g. ageing society) and the growth of the digital society.

Social impact:

Citizens: those, who are unable to interact with the on-line facilities, will continue experiencing 'digital exclusion' and limitations to social, economic, and civil participation. This situation will result in reduced access to jobs (through on line job search and application services) and online education opportunities for persons with disabilities or low digital skills.

Political impacts:

Member States: Under the present budgetary constraints, and in line with the Digital Agenda and the eGovernment Action Plan, the full digitisation of public services will continue to be a priority. Full online availability has been steadily increasing from 59% in 2007 to 82% in 2010[63], but without a rapid implementation of web-accessibility for those services, a large part of the population will likely be excluded. This could cause political reputation damage for all levels of government. Litigation (for example, based on existing national anti-discrimination legislation) will likely increase.

Environmental impacts:

No positive environmental impacts are likely to originate from the baseline scenario, as no improvement in the availability of accessible web-services might contribute to (i) enhanced virtualisation of service provisions especially for persons with physical and sensory impairments, and (ii) reduced provision of alternative physical formats of online information, such as large print or Braille-printed paper forms. These impacts have not been quantified.

6.2. Policy Option 2 - recommendation

As a non-binding measure, the impact of a Recommendation depends on the willingness of Member States to put it into action. In those countries that already have legislation or other measures on web-accessibility, revisions regarding more updated specifications (i.e. WCAG 2.0) might or are already occurring, as it has become evident that implementing WCAG 2.0 or equivalent harmonised M 376 standard can lead to savings (to up to 8%) compared te WCAG 1.0 (see also Annex II)[64].

A Recommendation will however not unlock the potential of the Digital Single Market for web-accessibility, because it will not fully remove fragmentation by enforcing harmonised specifications. Therefore, legal uncertainty will largely remain in the area of web-accessibility of public sector websites, thus increasing the costs linked to its implementation and to the needed tools and resources (due to reduced competition in the supply side).

Costs

If public sector and businesses would voluntary increase web-accessibility in conformance to WCAG 2.0 or equivalent M 376 EN, then the maximum costs for them would be the same as for option 3, although it should be taken into account that monitoring and administrative burden might be moved to the Commission (as the Commission would have to carry out studies to learn on the current state) .

Economic impacts:

Web-developers: these are likely to continue facing a fragmented internal market with the same disadvantages as Option 1.

Member States: For those that have already followed WCAG 1.0, savings could be expected, as the costs of applying WCAG 2.0 or equivalent M 376 EN are somewhat lower than of WCAG 1.0. Otherwise, little change is expected in the economic impact compared to Option 1.

Social impacts:

Citizens: Improvement is likely in Member States that would introduce relevant legislation as a consequence of the Recommendation. However, at EU level, citizens would still not be able to benefit from accessible online public services across Europe, as those online services will continue to suffer from a fragmented approach.

Political impacts:

Member States: For Member States that would introduce newly relevant legislation or extend the scope of type of websites as a consequence of such a Recommendation, increased operational efficiency and an improved reputation could be expected.

At EU level, Member States would not be able to deliver on common objectives on web-accessibility (see Riga Ministerial Declaration), nor on EU-level policy objectives such as the one for web-accessibility in the DAE to "make sure that public sector websites […] are fully accessible by 2015". There is a risk that the concept of 'fully accessible' would still widely differ across the EU. Hence, fragmentation would remain.

Environmental impacts:

Just as in Option 1, environmental impacts will materialise to a limited extent. These have not been quantified.

A Recommendation is feasible and can be done at low cost, but it is ineffective as regards to problem and the objectives.

6.3. Policy Option 3 – legislative measure based on Internal Market

A legally binding measure would ensure an approximation of the national provisions on web-accessibility, and enforce a coherent level of implementation of web-accessibility for the selected public sector websites. Thereby, it would remove current and avoid future fragmentation of the internal market.

6.3.1. Assessment of costs associated with the proposed action

The assessment focuses on those costs that are connected to the necessary investments and procedures for making websites accessible according to this proposal, and thereby achieving its objectives. Based on the degree of harmonisation proposed, a range of low and high estimates on costs is provided. Finally, an estimation is provided of the administrative costs implied by implementing the proposed legislation.

The cost estimates below are based on data, evidence and assumptions described in Annex VI. When exact figures are not available, the upper bound on figures leading to higher estimates on costs is used. For example, it is difficult to obtain the exact number of websites that belong to the twelve types of eGovernment services referred to as 'basic public services' websites. So, it is assumed that 'basic public services' websites represent half of the total number of all public websites in the EU: 380.000.

For the 6 Member States without pre-existing relevant measures for web-accessibility, there will be compliance costs for making websites accessible, ensuring annual evaluation of websites, and guaranteeing adequately skilled human resources. Assuming that no website is currently web-accessible (0% compliance), to achieve 100% compliance of the websites concerned in 1 year (including monitoring and administrative burden), would cost on average € 62 million (i.e., € 37 million if all websites were simple and € 88 million they all are as complex as defined in Annex VI). The yearly expenditures are € 41 million and comprise redevelopment of one third of these websites and maintenance, monitoring, and assessing web-accessibility for the rest.

For the 21 Member States with pre-existing web-accessibility measures, the additional costs should be minimal, since the websites concerned fall under the existing national regulation. There are broadly two categories of Member States: those that implement variations of WCAG 1.0 and those with variations of WCAG 2.0.

UK represents the group of EU Member States that have already introduced WCAG 1.0 level AA in their Web content Accessibility criteria. For these countries the (re)development of accessible websites according to WCAG 2.0 is estimated to cost 8% less than according to WCAG 1.0. Assuming that websites are redeveloped every 3-4 years, the measure actually leads to savings. France and Germany represent the Member States that have already implemented web-accessibility measures that prescribe variations of WCAG 2.0. For them, the development and maintenance costs would not change, except for countries that follow variations of WCAG 2.0 level A.

As many countri