Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Consumer policy action plan 1999-2001'
Date: 1999-05-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, consumer protection, report

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Consumer policy action plan 1999-2001’

(1999/C 209/01)

On 7 December 1998 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Consumer policy action plan
1999-2001.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 May 1999. The rapporteur was Mr
Anderson.

At its 364th plenary session (meeting of 26 May) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 88 votes to two with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In the action plan the Commission describes its plans
in the field of consumer policy over the next three years.
The Commission formulates three main objectives aimed at
enabling consumers to play an active role in the single
European market.

The first objective is a more powerful voice for the
1.2.
consumer throughout the EU. Consumer organisations are
expected to make an important contribution to this and may
expect support from the Commission.

1.3.
The second objective is a high level of health and safety
for EU consumers. A systematic risk analysis approach will
play a central role here.

1.4.
The Commission’s final objective is full respect for the
economic interests of EU consumers. The emphasis here is on
updating existing laws, with a balance being struck between
legislative and non-legislative instruments.

historical analysis of past consumer policy, which was in turn
followed by the informal consultation of, among others, the
Member States and consumer associations.

that

On a number of past occasions the Committee has
2.1.1.
felt
it would be desirable to carry out a thorough
evaluation of the previous action programme before launching
a new one (1). However, the historical analysis should not be
regarded as a proper assessment. Although a good description
is given of the development of consumer policy, a proper
assessment of the previous programme would also have been
useful. The previous programme was very ambitious and it is
important to know why certain objectives were not attained
or certain topics were not properly developed.

2.2.
The Amsterdam Treaty expanded the scope for an
effective consumer policy. The need for a high level of
consumer protection continues to be the basic requirement. It
is, however, now also stipulated — in Treaty Article 153 (ex
Article 129 a) — that account has to be taken of consumer
protection in other policy areas. A sound basis for future

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee appreciates the approach adopted in
the action programme. The programme was preceded by an

(1) See the ESC Opinion on the general framework for Community
activities in favour of consumers: OJ C 235, 27.7.1998; and the
ESC Opinion on consumer policy priorities (1996-1998): OJ
C 295, 7.10.1996.

C 209/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

activity has also been created by a decision of the Council and
European Parliament establishing a general framework for
Community activities in favour of consumers.

In general terms the Committee considers that the
2.3.
Commission has submitted an ambitious programme but
one that is more realistic than previous programmes. The
Committee also notes with approval that the programme has
the support of the full Commission. The programme does not
wish to raise expectations unduly, but instead makes a very
pragmatic attempt to establish a framework for the further
development of EU consumer policy.

2.4.
The Committee agrees wholeheartedly with the use of
the term ‘consumer policy’. In the past there was rather a lot
of talk of a ‘policy to protect consumers’. This suggests a
rather patronising approach and does not do sufficient justice
to the consumer’s position as a full and equal member of our
socio-economic order and to the active role which consumers
themselves may play. This does not mean, however, that there
is not a need to protect the interests of consumers in various
fields and under various circumstances. Even if consumers
behave as responsible citizens, they all too frequently have too
few opportunities to exert influence and it is necessary for the
government to regulate or intervene. It is then rightly alleged
that despite changing circumstances the basic objectives of
consumer policy and the rights of the consumer remain largely
unchanged.

2.5.
The first chapter contains, inter alia, a sketch of the
changes occurring in society which form the background
against which consumer policy has to be seen. The Committee
recognises its place in this sketch, but would like greater
emphasis to be put on the international/global perspective.
Because of internalisation a whole host of issues require a
global
instead of a national or purely EU approach. The
significance of this must be stressed more.

The Committee urges that consumer interests be
2.5.1.
adequately catered for in the international context and that
consumer representatives be able or enabled to fulfil their role
at that level. Full attention needs to be paid to consumers
concerns, in multilateral and bilateral trade relations in particu-
lar; these concerns include both health and safety matters and
economic and legal issues. The Committee also welcomes the
fact that the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) (1) —
set up,
in part, at the initiative of the ESC — has in the
meantime been taking shape and calls upon the Commission
to continue to support it.

2.6.
The Commission should ensure that consumer policy
and related measures are given due consideration in the
enlargement of the EU. There is a need to pay particular
attention to the ability of the applicant states to adopt EU
consumer law without delay and to implement the provisions
in practice; special support will have to be given to the
applicant states in this respect. It continues to be important to
give support to independent consumer organisations in these
states.

The Commission wants an important role to be
2.7.
played by self-regulation or dialogue between consumers and
business. The Committee makes specific reference to this
further on (point 3.3). In this context, it is rather strange to
read at the very start of the programme that consumers and
their representatives must display a new maturity and need to
understand the interlinkages between their own and others’
interests. The Committee wonders where such assertions have
been made, especially as consumer organisations in Europe are
aware of their responsibilities for the environment and society
in general.

2.8.
The Commission rightly points to the growing import-
ance of services and states that a more complex and less
homogeneous and transparent supply of services will create its
own problems. The Committee also feels that specific attention
should be paid to services, particularly services of general
interest, where liberalisation is taking place and complex
financial services.

The Committee acknowledges that liberalisation of
2.8.1.
services of general interest can bring major advantages for
consumers. It also feels, however, that liberalisation must be
subject to an appropriate regulatory framework and active
supervision to prevent the process taking the wrong direction.

2.9.
The Committee also acknowledges the sketch of the
changes occurring as a result of developments in the ‘infor-
mation society’. The Committee agrees that it is increasingly
necessary to ensure that the existing regulatory framework
remains relevant,
for example with regard to electronic
commerce. In view of the rapid changes that may take place,
sufficient flexibility is of course necessary. Whilst not wishing
to address this matter in greater detail at this juncture, the
Committee would draw attention to its very recent opinion on
the Proposal
for a Directive on specific legal aspects of
electronic commerce in the internal market.

2.9.1.
for an
Electronic commerce is an ideal subject
international approach. In this connection the Committee
would refer to its remarks in point 2.5 about international
bodies giving adequate consideration to consumer interests (2).

(1) See the ESC Opinion on the Trans-Atlantic Economic Partnership:

OJ C 407, 28.12.1998.

(2) OJ C 169, 16.6.1999.

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/3

3. A more powerful voice for the consumer throughout

the EU

3.1.
The Committee notes with approval that the Com-
mission assigns an important role to consumer organisations
and states that these organisations will need financial support
if they are to perform their function. Well-defined criteria need
to be applied to determine which bodies are eligible for this
support. The criteria set out in the general framework, referred
to in point 2.2 above, would be appropriate in this regard. The
independence of consumer organisations and their freedom of
action must, of course, always be guaranteed. It goes without
saying that this financial support needs to be used efficiently.
The provision of financial support to cooperative projects
between organisations is an interesting idea. This would
counter the danger of spreading resources too thinly.

3.1.1.
The Committee welcomes the fact that, in accordance
with Article 13 of the General Framework, the Commission is
to submit a comprehensive report each year on the financial
support granted to organisations or projects, with a view to
improving the transparency of its activities. The result of the
projects could be appended.

The Committee is aware that in some Member States
3.2.
to consumer organisations is extremely
financial support
limited and that
cannot
adequately fulfil the role expected of them in society. Moreover,
in the past, support went to projects with a strong national
dimension.

these organisations

therefore

3.2.1.
On the one hand, the Committee well understands
that the Commission would not want to take on the responsi-
bilities of national governments. But on the other hand, the
failings of national government are the source of constraints
which have an impact at European level (e.g. with regard to
standardisation). The Member States should be more aware
of the fact that improved financial support for consumer
organisations is not a luxury.

3.3.
The Commission intends to attach high priority to a
dialogue between business and consumers in order to arrive at
European self-regulation agreements. The Committee notes
that, in the present day and age with circumstances changing
so rapidly, legislation will by no means be effective all the time
and that more flexible forms of self-regulation may offer more
scope. In addition, there are bound to be doubts about the
possibilities for complying with legislation and the associated
costs. Hence the Committee’s positive response to the subject
of dialogue/self-regulation.

3.3.1.
However, the Committee would like to make a
number of comments in passing. The term ‘self-regulation’ can
mean different things to different people, varying from binding
mutual agreements, which can be applied generally, to codes
of conduct applicable in individual establishments. In recent

years self-regulation has produced good results in various
Member States. Direct consultations, often on a voluntary
basis, between organisations representing businesses and con-
sumers have proved to be a good substitute for statutory
provisions. It would seem to be important in this connection
that the partners know and trust each other and can rely on
agreements being kept. It is also important that the agreements
contain provisions for the settlement of disputes and impo-
sition of effective sanctions by, for example, an independent
third party agreed on in advance, in cases where one of the
parties infringes or fails to comply with the agreement. The
social, cultural and legal background plays an important role
here.

To achieve all this at European level, however, will
3.3.2.
not be easy. Quite apart from the fact that self-regulation is
not a familiar concept in all countries, the Commission will
have to establish the framework very clearly prior to the
launch of the dialogue. The conditions and timing will have to
be spelt out clearly in the framework. It must also be clear
from the outset what happens in the event of the parties being
unable to reach agreement. Is it then up to the Commission to
adopt measures? In the Committee’s view, the threat of the
‘big stick’ to bring the parties into line may be necessary.

3.3.3.
The Committee would also draw attention to the fact
that organised dialogues can place a great strain on the
consumer bodies and businesses concerned, where these
involve commitment of staff and resources. The Committee
calls on the Commission to adopt appropriate financial
measures to enable the work to be carried out on drawing up
and applying the codes.

3.3.4.
adoption of legislative measures where necessary.

In addition, self-regulation should not preclude the

4. A high level of health and safety for EU consumers

4.1.
Over the last few years various food scandals have hit
the headlines. Some consumers are very doubtful about the
safety of food, for example with regard to the use of new
technologies such as GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
The Commission rightly points out that this is not a purely EU
issue, but that a worldwide approach and consensus are
needed. The Committee considers it
the
precautionary principle should remain the main plank of the
EU’s position in international forums, such as the WTO. In
this context it is necessary to ask to what extent scientific
criteria are applicable. Moreover, the principle should not be
based on purely scientific considerations but could also
encompass societal factors.

important

that

C 209/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

4.2.
The improvement of existing health and safety rules in
order to reflect new developments is in itself justified. It must
be ensured however that this does not lead to lower quality. In
more general terms, the Committee advocates the use of a
term such as ‘re-regulation’ to make it clear that the objectives
and scope of regulations must at least remain at their present
level.

5. Full respect for the economic interests of EU con-

sumers

The Committee notes that the Commission is seeking
5.1.
to establish a consumer-friendly single market for financial
services. It would point out in this connection that a number
of financial products lack transparency, partly due to the
nature of the products themselves. At the same time many
consumers are increasingly faced with the need to do more
themselves, e.g. with regard to future provisions such as
pensions and life insurance. Where even at national level the
average consumer is disinclined to switch financial service
provider or insurer because of the lack of transparency of
supply, things become even more difficult at European level.
Tax aspects are an additional complication.

5.2.
The Committee accepts the logic of the Commission’s
wish to bring the existing law on consumer credit into line
with existing methods and practices. The Committee feels
however that this should not lead to any relaxation of the
obligations of providers of credit. In this connection, the
Committee agrees that there is a need for action to combat
over-indebtedness.

5.3.
The Committee will be interested to see how the
Commission intends to set about integrating the economic
interests of consumers into other EU policy measures. In the

Brussels, 26 May 1999.

past suggestions have frequently been made as to ways of
bringing consumer interests systematically to bear. Thus for
example, every policy measure could be accompanied by a
consumer impact assessment. The wording chosen with regard
to integration of consumer interests is rather cautious. A
sentence such as ‘The aim will be to improve policymakers’
understanding of the nature of consumer interests’ suggests
great reticence.

5.3.1.
The Committee intends to give the Commission the
benefit of the doubt with regard to its approach to integration
policy, but trusts that the responsible Commissioner will make
sure that her colleagues keep this issue constantly in mind.

5.4.
It is striking that the programme deals only briefly
with the position of vulnerable consumers. It is, however,
important to realise that by no means everybody has the
necessary self-assurance and assertiveness to make his or her
own choices and to come to sensible decisions. There are large
groups of people who are far less capable of doing this, if at
all. The reasons for this may be economic deprivation, lack of
knowledge or social and/or cultural backwardness. Such
groups of vulnerable consumers, which include the handi-
capped, foreigners, people drawing benefits or the minimum
wage and children, deserve special attention. The Committee
suggests that the Commission consider drawing up a specific
policy tailored to these consumers.

6. Final comment

The Committee notes that DG XXIV has recently
6.1.
published the 1997 annual report. The Committee considers
such reports to be a good idea and suggests to the Commission
that the reports should also give a systematic account of the
progress made on the points contained in this consumer action
plan.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI