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
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, Internet address, access to information, approximation of laws, facilities for people with disabilities, public institution

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 3.12.2012  
SWD(2012) 401 final 

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  

{COM(2012) 721 final} 
{SWD(2012) 402 final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
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 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 

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

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

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

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

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4. 

3.5. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

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

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

Objectives................................................................................................................... 24 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proportionality ........................................................................................................... 28 

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

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

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

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

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

7.5. 

7.6. 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

8.3. 

9. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
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  

(cid:130) 

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

market players; 

(cid:130) 

indicate  the  websites  that  will  be  affected  and  who  will  benefit  from  the  initiative; 

justification on the limitation to public sector websites; 
(cid:130) 

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

(2)  Better demonstrate the case for EU action 

(cid:130) 
(cid:130) 
(cid:130) 

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 

(cid:130) 

explain lack of further feasible substantive policy options;  

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
(cid:130) 

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. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
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.  

1  The  study  (procured  in  2008  as  SMART  2008/0066)  produced  two  annual  reports,  in  2010  and  2011. 

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-economic-assessment-and-evaluation-
recommendations-improving-e-accessibility-services-and 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 
Assessment2.  

(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) 

(4) 

(5) 

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).  

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

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  i20103  e-inclusion  subgroup  has  discussed  web-
accessibility  at  most  of  its  thirteen  meetings  (from  2006  to  2010)4.  Member  States 

2 

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-economic-assessment-and-evaluation-recommendations-

improving-e-accessibility-services-and 

3 'i2010' refers to Commission Communication "European i2010 initiative on e-Inclusion - to be part of the 

information society" adopted on 8 November 2007. 

4 See http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/groups-supporting-e-inclusion-agenda, in particular the report 

of its twelfth meeting in January 2010. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

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. 

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.  

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.  

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. 

Internal consultations  

1.3.2. 
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 

5 http://www.edf-feph.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=13854&thebloc=28120 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 
that 
provided  on-line.  Furthermore, 
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. 

it  ensures 

that  anyone  may  be  subject 

Websites that comply with web-accessibility criteria 
have  a  higher  degree  of  usability  for  all  users,  
considering 
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 
features6. 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  20307)  or  health-
related impairments (some 15% of the EU population).  

WCAG 2.0;   Example of requirements: 
1  Perceivable  (text  alternatives  for  any  non-
text  content  so  that  it  can  be  changed  into 
other forms people need, such as large print, 
Braille, speech, symbols or simpler language; 
alternatives  for  time-based  media;  content 
that  can  be  presented  in  different  ways 
without 
information  or  structure; 
easier  for  users  to  see  and  hear  content 
from 
including 
background).  

foreground 

separating 

losing 

2 Operable (all functionality available from a 
keyboard; enough time for users to read and 
use  content;  content  not  in  a  way  that  is 
known to cause seizures; ways to help users 
navigate,  find  content,  and  determine  where 
they are).  

3  Understandable  (text  content  readable  and 
understandable;  Web  pages  appearing  and 
operating  in  predictable  ways;  help  users 
avoid and correct mistakes).  

4  Robust  (maximize  compatibility  with 
current  and  future  user  agents,  including 
assistive technologies). 

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 State8. 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. 

6 The Wide Range of Abilities and Its Impact on Computer Technology – Forrester Research Inc., 2003. 
7 Eurostat: Europop2010 population projections (online data code: proj_10c2150p) 
8 Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
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 
Public sector + Private sector 
Private sector 
Public sector  

38.080.000
19.801.600
19.040.000
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 201110.   

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, EL11, IE, LU, LV12, HU13  

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

Dimension 
Type of approach 

Member States 
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 

9 Source: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150 
10  Source: SMART 2009/0068, see section 2.4.1 and Annex II. 
11  Since 2001 the constitution guarantees the right for everyone to participate in the Information Society, but no 

concrete legislation seems to have emerged from this yet 

12  The concept of equal right has been adopted on 30th June 1998  
13  Act  1998.  XXVI  on  “The  Rights  of  Disabled  and  on  Ensuring  Their  Equality”  does  not  impose  a  direct 
eAccessibility  obligation,  but  seems  to  have  been  influential  in  encouraging  public  agencies  to  make  their 
websites accessible 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Websites covered 

Timeframe for 
web-accessibility 

Accessibility 
requirements 

Support for web 
owners 

Enforcement 

Conformity 
assessment 

Monitoring 

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. 
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.  
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. 
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). 
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  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). 
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. 
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.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
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 benefits14. The following two cases can illustrate this15. 

– 

– 

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 costs16. 

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  complexity18.  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. 

14 For a range of examples of benefits of Web-accessibility, see Smart 2009/0072. 
15 Sources: Abrahms (2007), Davies (2007), eConsultancy (2007), Lawson (2006), Nicholl (2006), Sloan (2006), 

Thatcher et al (2006), Wilton & Howell (2007), W3C (2009). 

16 Sources: EFoD (2006), W3C (2009) 
17  Source:  Eurostat,  Annual  detailed  enterprise  statistics  for  services  (NACE  rev2  H-N  and  S95),  online  data 

code sbs_na_1a_se_r2 

18  For the low estimate: 7 Templates, 100 pages, 50 pictures and 5 forms. For the high estimate: 15 templates, 

300 pages, 50 pictures and 5 forms. Details are provided in section 6.1.2 and Annex VI). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Current EU web-accessibility market estimates (EUR) 
Public sector 
Private sector 
Public and private sectors 

Low estimate 
 179 million 
1,221 million 
1,400 million 

High estimate  
 428 million 
2,915 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  Resolutions20,  and 
encouraged Member States to require developers to implement WCAG 1.0.  

19http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/mandates/database/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.detail&id=33

3 

20 2002/C 86/02 and 2002/C 86/02 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

In 2002, the European Parliament suggested all public sector websites to be fully 
accessible to persons with disabilities by 2003 conform WCAG21. 

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.  

In 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee issued an Opinion24 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 opinion25 on the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 that 
the  EU's 
stated:  “The  mainstreaming  of  accessibility  will  contribute 
competitiveness and economic recovery by creating new markets for assistive goods 
and services and new jobs”.  

to 

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.  

In  2009  Council  Conclusions  on  the  accessible  information  society27  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”. 

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”.  

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

The  eGovernment  Action  Plan  2011-201530  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 

21 C5-0074/2002-2002/2032(COS) 
22  COM(2005)425;  eAccessibility  refers  to  ICT  in  general,  such  as  mobile  phones,  self-service  terminals  (e.g. 

ATMs) and the internet (web-accessibility). 

23 COM(2008) 804 
24 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:110:0026:0032:EN:PDF 
25 CESE 1382/2011 - SOC/403 
26 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf 
27 COM(2009) 804 
28 COM(2010) 2020, http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm 
29 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/ 
30 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/action_plan_2011_2015/index_en.htm 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 Guide32: “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-
Practice33) 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) 

(2) 

(3) 

Public  Procurement  Directive  (2004/18/EC)34.  A  proposal  to  update  this  Directive 
(adopted  by  the  Commission  on  20  December  201135)  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.” 

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

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.  

31 Technosite, Final Report of Study on Accessibility of European Commission Websites - SMART 2008/0069 
32 http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/standards/accessibility/index_en.htm 
33
34 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:134:0114:0240:EN:PDF 
35 COM(2011) 896 final 2011/0438 (COD) 

 http://www.epractice.eu/index.php?page=search&q=einclusion 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

36http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/pisa/app/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=pisa_notif_overview&iYear=2011 

&inum=70&lang=DE&sNLang=DE 

37 http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 here38: 

•  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 

38  SMART  2009/0072  and  responses  from  internationally  operating  companies  offering  web-accessibility 

services, provide under condition of anonymity. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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: 

39 European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association; White paper on eAccessibility, 

http://www.digitaleurope.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/document1166614008.pdf 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

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.  

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

Member States with policies that cluster  accessibility with other quality criteria for 
public  sector  websites,  e.g.  with  a  focus  on  usability40,  causing  confusion  with 
unwanted market distortion as a consequence. 

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.  

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 

40 Until recently, this was reported to be the case in NL, where it presently has been solved. 
41 The numerical codes following the activities are those from the statistical classification of economic activities 

in the European Community –NACE Revision 2– established by the Regulation EC No 1893/2006. See 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-07-015/EN/KS-RA-07-015-EN.PDF 
42  Study "Competitiveness of the EU SMEs in the ICT services Industry". Source: ENTR/06/054, Final Report. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 citizens43: 

• 
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. 

43 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/egovernment-indicators-benchmarking-eeurope 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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-accessibility44. 

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 study45 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  study46  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  population48  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 
impossible50.  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) 

(2) 

(3) 

continue  to  raise  awareness  and  disseminate  ideas,  opportunities,  and 

solutions through communications, events, thematic networks or platforms;  

continue  benchmarking,  monitoring,  having  dialogues  with  Member  States 

and other stakeholders, and gathering evidence through studies;  

continue  the  development  of  a  European  standard  in  the  context  of  the 

mandate 376, leading to a EN ( European reference document);  

44 Source: study mentioned in Communication on e-accessibility (COM(2005) 425. 
45 "Accessibility to ICT Products and services by Disabled and Elderly People", 11 July 2008 
46http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_situation/docs/lot7_ict_finalreport_en.pdf  "The  Demographic 

Change – Impacts of New Technologies and Information Society", 2005, p.10. 

47 http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_datatables&Itemid=121&task=show_category&catdex=3 
48 Pew Internet Survey, http://www.pewinternet.org 
49 Source: Oxford Internet Survey 2009 (http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/oxis/OxIS2009_Report.pdf) 
50 Pew Internet Survey, http://www.pewinternet.org 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

continue to implement web-accessibility in its own websites; 

carry  on  supporting  R&D  and  innovation  on  web-accessibility  through  its 

funding programmes;  

continue to promote and support involvement of users and their organisations 

in all theses actions;  

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  

51  Ministerial  Declaration  on  eGovernment,  Malmö,  18/11/2009,  reinforced  in  the  2010  eGovernment  Action 

Plan, see Annex III. 

52 Study "Accessibility of ICT products and services to Disabled and Older People" 
53  Study  "Accessibility  of  ICT  products  and  services  to  Disabled  and  Older  People".  See  also  annex  VI  and 

results of the study in Annex II. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 

54 http://www.fixtheweb.net/ 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
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 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
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  updated55  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 AA56.  

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  Zealand57  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  

55  United  States  Access  Board,  http://www.access-board.gov/news/ict-draft-rule.htm,  03/2010.  Efforts  for 
harmonisation with Europe are undertaken via cooperation of the US in the EU's Mandate 376. 

56 Source: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/notice.htm - http://www.access-

board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm. 

57  Source:  2011  -  http://webstandards.govt.nz/standards/nzgws-2/  with  a  complement  precising  the  "Only 
Accessibility-Supported  Ways  of  Using  Technologies"  as  foreseen  in  the  W3C/WAI  conformance 
requirements. 

58 Source: http://www.w3.org/2011/pas/wcag2-er4.htm - 

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=58625 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
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. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
•  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) 

(b) 

(c) 

to  select  the  standard  to  be  used  for  providing  presumption  of 

conformance with the requirements for web-accessibility, 

to  define  the  monitoring  methodology  for  regular  conformance 

verification 

to define the reporting modalities  

•  Shall deploy additional measures   

(a) 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

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

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

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

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. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
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 
laws,  regulations  and 
transposed 
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 

into  national 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
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 

Proof of compliance 
with web-accessibility 
specifications 

Optional:  compliance  approach  (e.g.  supplier-declared 
compliance 
third-party 
certification) 

self-certification, 

or 

Methodology for 
assessing accessibility 
Reporting at EU level  Mandatory:  web-accessibility  status  including  degree 
common 

Mandatory: common, as specified in this measure and 
periodically reviewed by delegated act 

according 

to 

of  web-accessibility 
measurement methodology  

Relevant public sector 
websites (websites 
concerned) 

Compliance date for 
newly built websites 

Compliance date for 
existing websites 

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 
Mandatory: upon entry into force 

Mandatory: 2015 
Optional: before 2015 

Complaints and 
suggestions handling 

Optional: to have a mechanism in place for accessible 
online submission of complaints and suggestions  

Cooperation 

Table 5 Elements of option 3 

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. 

Affecting 
Subsidiarity 

Subsidiarity 

Proportionality 

Subsidiarity, 
Proportionality 

Subsidiarity 

Subsidiarity 

Subsidiarity 
Proportionality 

 Subsidiarity 

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.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
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 
measures59, 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 

59 All Member States and EU have signed and most Member States have ratified the UNCRPD, and 21 Member 
States  already  have  policies  or  legislation  on  the  accessibility  of  public  sector  websites,  based  on  anti-
discrimination  grounds.  An  anti-discrimination  approach  of  web-accessibility  with  reference  to  'equal 
access'  and  'digital  exclusion/inclusion'  (with  article  19.1.  as  the  legal  basis),  is  already  covered  in  the 
proposal for an Equal Treatment Directive, that is still before the Council. The issue of non-discriminatory 
access to goods and services is covered by Articles 3(1)d, 4, 4a, and 5 of this proposal. 

60 COM(2011) 896 final 2011/0438 (COD), see 

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/index_en.htm 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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: 

61   Source: smart 2008/0067, Internal market for inclusive and assistive ict; Targeted market analysis and 

legislative aspects (Final report June 2011). Deloitte & AbilityNet. See 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/assistive_market/index_en.htm 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
•  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 specificities62).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 201063,  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 

62 SMART 2009/0072 
63 Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action; 9th Benchmark Measurement, December 

2010, Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

64 Source: EC study, ref. SMART 2009/0072: Technosite, "Economic Assessment for Improving e-Accessibility 

Services and Products." 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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, 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
the  development  and  maintenance  costs  would  not  change,  except  for  countries  that  follow 
variations of WCAG 2.0 level A.  

As  many  countries  do  not  have  time  targets  or  have  not  reached  them,  the  costs  were 
estimated  to  achieve  100%  compliance  of  the  websites  concerned  in  one  year,  under  the 
assumption  that,  by  2015,  45%  of  them  would  allready  be  compliant.    In  that  case,  the 
additional investments would amount to between  € 260 million for simple websites and € 560 
million if all were as complex as defined in Annex VI (including the costs of  monitoring and 
administrative burden).  

Cost of information obligation 

For all Member States, minimal additional costs could result from the reporting schemes for 
common monitoring of implementation and from Information Obligations65.  Option 3 entails 
information  obligations  for  national,  regional  and  local  administrations  to  monitor  the 
indicators  at  EU  level  and  to  share  experiences.  A  more  extensive  EU-level  cooperation 
mechanism would be needed, including meetings with stakeholders (e.g. in a national forum 
of  users,  industry,  and  public  administrations)  and  meetings  on  Delegated  Acts.  Cost 
indications were obtained from the studies and consultations. Using the available calculation 
facilities, the annual cost at EU level for Option 3 is estimated at € 1,65 million.  

Types of Information Obligation (IO) 

Required actions 

(1) Submission of reports on the accessibility 
status of websites – once a year 

Familiarising with the IO 

Training employees about the IO 

Collecting information and filling forms 

Sending the information to EC 

(2) Coordinated actions related to Delegate acts & 
Committees – twice a year 

Holding meetings  

(3) Meeting with stakeholders at national level 

Holding meetings 

Table 6 Overview administrative burden 

Cost of monitoring 

The calculation of the monitoring costs at country level is given in the table below. It is based 
on the monitoring specifications proposed in Annex IX, based on regions. 

Country 
EU27 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 

Total daily 
fees 

N° of regions  N° of sampled 

Price 

websites 

337
436
459
97
302
183
601

273
9
11
7
2
8
5

573 
19 
23 
15 
5 
17 
11 

686.517
25.441
32.433
4.470
4.644
9.532
20.320

65 Types of Information Obligation are, for example, 'Submission of recurring reports' (e.g. with results of annual 

assessments) and 'Collaborations'. More details and estimations are given in Section 7.6. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany  
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

134
385
429
446
330
165
610
438
151
119
605
159
466
184
212
168
167
321
360
625
552

1
5
26
39
13
7
2
21
1
1
1
1
12
16
7
8
4
2
19
8
37

3 
11 
53 
79 
27 
15 
5 
43 
3 
3 
3 
3 
25 
33 
15 
17 
9 
5 
39 
17 
75 

1.234
13.010
69.866
108.282
27.335
7.616
9.374
57.889
1.396
1.100
5.576
1.467
35.785
18.641
9.766
8.756
4.617
4.930
43.129
32.657
127.253

Table 7 Calculation of the monitoring costs 

Administrative burden  

The administrative burden is calculated in accordance with details provided in Annex VI. 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Web accessibility

Administrative Costs for the Public Administrations (27 Member States)

Tariff (1 
per hour)

Time 
(min.)

Price (per 
action)

Freq (per 
year)

Nr. 
entities

Total 
number of 
actions

Equip. 
costs 
(per 
entity & 
per year)

Outsourcing 
costs (per 
entity & per 
year)

Total 
administrative 
costs

Busines
s as 
usual 
costs (% 
of ACT)

Total 
administrative 
burdens (AC-BAU)

No.

Art.

Or
ig. 
Ar
t.

1

2

3

Type of obligation

Description required action(s)

Target group

Submission of 
(recurring) reports

Familiarizing with the information 
obligation

External 
Communication 
(*) 2 technicians

18,47  

120

36,94  

0,5

540

270

9.974  

0%

9.974 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports

Training employees about the 
information obligations

External 
Communication

25,63  

120

51,26  

0,5

135

67,5

3.460  

0%

3.460 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports

Filing the information

External 
Communication

25,63  

60

25,63  

1

54

54

1.384  

0%

1.384 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports

Submitting the information

External 
Communication

25,63  

30

12,82  

1

27

27

346  

0%

346 

Coordinated actions 
(related to Delegated 
Acts)

Holding meetings

External 
Communication

25,63  

480

205,04  

2

27

54

10.000  

281.072  

0%

281.072 

Stakeholders meetings 
at national level

Holding meetings

External 
Communication

25,63  

480

205,04

1

27

27

50.000  

1.355.536  

0%

1.355.536 

(*) National body in charge of development or procuring development of Websites (each with 5 professionals + 10 technicians assigned to this info oblig.)

Total adm. costs

1.651.772  

Table 8 Administrative burden calculation 

Web-developers  might  incur  costs  for  training  their  personnel,  for  buying  equipment  for 
providing  'web-accessibility'  according  to  the  harmonised  criteria  and  for  delivering 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
certifications.  Nevertheless,  these  would  be  incorporated  into  their  service  offers  to  the 
contracting authorities, and should not be counted twice. 

For  Public  Administrations,  the  obligations  would  apply  'immediately'  only  to  websites 
designed after the adoption of the measure. The cost of refurbishing already existing websites 
for Public Administrations would depend on their number and complexity. Evidence indicates 
that these costs would be largely compensated by efficiency gains realised relatively quickly 
(such as reduced helpdesk support; see 'economic impact' in the next paragraph).  

6.3.2.  Assessments of Impact and benefits 

Detailed calculation of estimations for economic values and further discussion on benefits are 
provided in annex VII. 

Social impacts - Citizens  

1. 

2. 

The significantly increased web-accessibility will lead to increased opportunities for 
economic  and  social  participation  for  citizens,  and  especially  for  those  with 
disabilities. Citizens would also not experience service denial while trying to access 
essential basic public services from other countries. 

Experts  on  web-accessibility,  who  have  disabilities  themselves  (and  so,  a  valuable 
personal experience) would likely have more job opportunities.  

Policy impacts:  

3. 

4. 

5. 

Governments  that have introduced  strong  web-accessibility  approaches have  seen a 
significant  increase  in  the  usage  of  their  web  portals;  some  have  won  awards,  for 
instance,  Ireland  (Department  of  Social  and  Family  Affairs)  and  USA  (West 
Virginia).  

Governments could easier and with less cost fulfill their public obligations, and could 
avoid litigations (see the cases in the UK and Spain mentioned in earlier section).  

The  proposal  would  help  delivering  EU  common  objectives  for  accessibility  (Riga 
Ministerial Declaration), and political objectives concerning the Digital Agenda and 
the  Digital  Single  Market.  The  Digital  Agenda's  goal  of  "making  sure  that  public 
sector websites […] are fully accessible by 2015", could still be achieved even with 
transposition delays (to accommodate for the fact that national provisions differ). 

Environmental impacts:  

6. 

As the intervention would reduce the necessity to provide electronic public services 
via  alternative  opions,  the  environmental  impacts  would  consist  of  (i)  reduced 
provision of printed material (e.g. large  Braille imprints), and (ii) reduced travel of 
citizens  to  government  offices.  These  impacts  have  not  been  quantified.  They  will 
further  increase  when  web-accessibility  will  subsequently  diffused  to  services 
offered on the web by other actors.  

Economic impacts for governments: 

7. 

It is estimated that, if just 50% of the population with long-standing health problems 
or disabilities is reached, the net yearly benefit for public administrations in EU 27 
can surpass € 200 million, since online servic e provision is cheaper than the face-to-
face equivalent (see  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
40et sionTable 10 and Table 11, using data from the cost-benefit study from Eurostat 
and more detailed calibrations from the Czech Republic and the Netherlands). 

If  savings  for  government  transactions,  unemployment  and  disability  benefits  and 
increased tax revenues from employment are taken into account, the estimation rises 
to about € 600 million per year.  

Better service offers as discussed in the section below on economic impact for web-
developers. 

8. 

9. 

Economic impacts for citizens: 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

All  citizens  would  benefit  from  the  facilitated  access  to  essential  'basic  public 
services',  saving  transport  cost  and  time.  If  the  spill-over  into  the  private  sector  is 
realized, consumers would benefit from savings of an estimated € 300 million a year 
by being able to compare services in the internal market66.  

Access  to  more  competitive  offers  and  consequently  lower  prices  will  provide 
citizens  with  benefits  that  can  be  estimated  at  above  €  500  million  by  2015  (see 
appendix VII). 

Increased  web-accessibility  will  lead  to  better  economic  and  social  participation, 
thus, a better quality of life. For example, the use of broadband has been shown to 
lead to a 20% reduction of depression rates amongst elderly (less social isolation). It 
is hard to quantify 'quality of life improvement', but case studies provide anecdotal 
evidence.  

Jobs  will  be  created  for  the  development,  maintenance  and  monitoring  of  web-
accessibility,  that  could  be  particularly  suitable  for  young  people  and  people  with 
disabilities (as the personal experience from the latter is considered a major asset). 

Economic impacts for web-developers: 

14. 

15. 

16. 

Web providers benefit from both the growing expenditures of governments on web-
accessibility  and  improved  conditions  of  the  internal  market  for  web-accessibility 
services.  

Web-developers would be able to provide their services and products across Europe 
more easily and at lower costs. These benefits could be equalled to the expenditures 
of public administrations and companies on accessible websites. See section 6.3.1. 

While large enterprises would also enjoy better conditions in a harmonised market, 
the larger beneficiary would be SMEs, who would be provided with better conditions 
to  grow  in  this  area  –  thanks  to  uniform  and  easy  to  adopt  technical  criteria. 
Unfamiliarity with national requirements on web-accessibility would no longer be a 
barrier to participate in certain markets. 

17. 

Economy of scale would be realized due to a reduced cost of production and higher 
sales volumes; whereas the buying parties (public administrations) would, over time, 

66 Study on Accessibility of ICT products and services to Disabled and Older People, Annex II and V 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
benefit  from  potentially  lower  prices  of  web  accessibility.  See  Section  6.3.3  on  the 
sensitivity analysis and related Annex VIII for further estimation. 

Economic impacts for private sector (as website owners): 

18. 

Public  authorities  could  influence  website  owners  in  the  private  sector  through 
leadership  by  example  and  the  provision  of    more  evidence  on  the  return  on 
investment  in  terms  of  more  online  customers  attracted.  This  would  reinforce  the 
critical mass of the market for web-accessibility. Major players (such as Employers 
Alliance, Lloyds Bank) have already expressed such intentions. Evidence generated 
by  first  movers  in  the  public  sector  can  trigger  positive  spill-over  effects  of  the 
proposed  legislation  (see  Annex  II).67  Case  studies  show  that  web-accessibility 
increases  markets  and  reduces  costs  (e.g.,  Tesco  and  General&Ledger  in  Section 
2.1.2). Costs reductions on helpdesk support of 20% have been reported.  

6.3.3. 

Sensitivity analysis 

Technology evolution:  In the context of the sensitivity analysis it is important to stress that 
the proposal based on the Mandate 376 that build on the W3C/WCAG 2.0 approach is future-
proof,  as  its  functional  specifications  for  web-accessibility  are  technology  neutral.  They 
indicate which basic criteria have to be fulfilled for the user to perceive, operate or understand 
a  site  and  its  content. However,  they  do  not  dictate  how  this  has  to  be  achieved  or  what 
technology  should  be  selected  for  a  particular  site  or  piece  of  on-line  material  (such  as 
HTML+CSS, Flash, and PDF), or for which device (such as a computer screen, mobile device 
or digital TV screen).   

The European Standarisation Organisations make full use of the way in which organisations 
like the W3C Web-Accessibility initiative and the other proprietary technology designers that 
develop,  update  and  enrich  regularly  so  called  techniques  documents,  providing  "sufficient 
methods" (and corresponding conformance tests) to achieve such criteria. A recent example is 
the  availability  of  guidance  for  rich  internet  applications  (RIA)  with  much  interactivity  and 
dynamic  content.  This  ensures  that  there  is  an  adequate  mechanism  to  tackle  the  web-
accessibility aspects of new developments in web technologies (e.g. the upcoming HTML5) 
or  platforms (e.g. with the cloud computing concept). In addition, the use of EU harmonised 
standards is a flexible way of providing presumption of conformity. 

Analysis  shows  that  the  potential  market  growth  is  significant.  The  market  for  the  web-
accessibility of the public sector websites in EU could double rapidly, reaching € 540 million 
per  year,  if  transitional  costs  of  €  300  million  are  made  to  reach  100%  compliance.  The 
market  growth  of  business  sector  websites  could  accelerate  towards  its  potential  of  €  15 
billion per year if over the years € 20 billion is  invested to reach high compliance. The market 
size  in  2012  has  been  calculated  based  on  current  compliance  levels  of  33%  for  all  public 
websites and 9% for business websites, as done in section 2.2. If both types of websites would 
grow at the same rates until 2015, one can assume the levels of compliance for that year 45% 
for public and 12% for private websites. 

67 European Commission, Economic Assessment for Improving e-Accessibility Services and Products (SMART 

2009/0072) 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Going beyond the transitional phase, the market size given 100% web accessibility, based on 
the current number of websites, is calculated as the cost of maintenance of web accessibility 
for 66% of the websites and the cost of re-development for 33% of the websites.68  

Yearly market size with 100% web-accessibility levels (EUR)

Low estimate 

High estimate 

Public sector 

Private sector 

  399 million 

  828 million 

9.979 million 

2.071 million 

 Table 9 Estimate of the potential web-accessibility market with 100% compliance both in public sector and businesses 

The  indicated  average  potential  of  the  business  web-accessibility  market  of  €15  billion  per 
year  will  not  be  realised  since  many  businesses  are  too  small  or  do  not  provide  services 
online.  Yet,  it  does  show  that  the  market  has  the  potential  to  multiply  many  times.  For  the 
calculation of the costs and benefits of full compliance to the proposal, different factors have 
been  taken  into  account  in  this  sensitivity  analysis:  the  complexity  of  the  website  (as 
described in the low and high estimate's introduced in Annex VI)  the estimated compliance 
of the public sector website and the percentage of the fraction of the targeted population that 
gains access to the website and actually uses it. 

It can be assumed that without intervention the compliance level achieved by 2015 would be 
only 45% of basic public websites in EU 27, and according to national specifications. Table 
10 below indicates the cost but also the benefits if 100% web-accessibility is achieved – after 
EU intervention - within a year. In that case the costs outweigh the benefits in both the high 
and  low  scenario.  The  costs  would  be  even  lower  if  they  were  spread  over  a  3-  or  5-year 
period.  

The  calculation  of  the  benefits  is  based  on  on-line  transaction  advantages,  according  to 
evidence from Ireland. There the Revenue Commissions have estimated government savings 
due  to  the  introduction  of  the  online  filing  and  payment  system.  If  the  barriers  to  Internet 
access  were  removed,  and  if  just  20%  of  Irish  population  with  disabilities  completed  just  3 
eGovernment  transactions  per  year,  savings  of  almost  €4  milli on  would  accrue  to 
Government.69  

People with 
disabilities 

Compliance 
in % 

Low estimate 
(Simple 
websites)  

High estimate  
(Large 
websites) 

Net benefits 

Net benefits 

100 
75 
50 
25 
5 

487.327.060 
300.389.484 
113.451.907 
-73.485.670 
-223.035.731 

191.147.305
4.209.728
-182.727.849
-369.665.425
-519.215.487

 Benefits 

 Costs 

 Costs 

Basic public 
sector 
services 
747.750.307
560.812.730
373.875.153
186.937.577
37.387.515

Low estimate 
(Simple 
websites) 

High estimate 
(Large 
websites) 

260.423.247 
260.423.247 
260.423.247 
260.423.247 
260.423.247 

556.603.002
556.603.002
556.603.002
556.603.002
556.603.002

Table 10 Calculation of net benefits of reaching full compliance with WCAG 2.0 in EU27 

The  cost  and  benefits  have  been  calculated,  for  just  the  six  countries  not  having  any 
legislation  or  special  measures,  under  the  assumption  that  there  is  presently  no  web-

68 Calls for the inclusion of these additional types have been stressed during public consultations. 
69 Source: "Economic Assessment for Improving e-Accessibility Services and Products" (SMART 2009/0072). 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
accessibility  for  the  basic  public  sector  services  at  all,  and  that  investments  are  spread  out 
over 3 years. 

People with 
disabilities 

Compliance in 
% 

Low estimate 
(Simple 
websites) 7 

High estimate 
(Large 
websites) 15 

Net benefits 

Net benefits 

Benefits 

  Costs 

  Costs 

Basic public 
sector 
services 

Low estimate 
(Simple 
websites) 

High estimate 
(Large 
websites) 

100 
75 
50 
25 
5 

31.502.980 
20.557.798 
9.612.617 
-1.332.564 
-10.088.709 

14.597.479
3.652.298
-7.292.883
-18.238.064
-26.994.209

43.780.725
32.835.544
21.890.362
10.945.181
2.189.036

12.277.745 
12.277.745 
12.277.745 
12.277.745 
12.277.745 

29.183.246
29.183.246
29.183.246
29.183.246
29.183.246

Table 11 Calculation of net benefits of reaching full compliance with WCAG 2.0 in 6 countries without any measures 

Economy of scale: The above cost calculations assume that the benefits due to the economies 
of  scale  are  fully  received  by  the  producers  of  the  authoring  tools  and  the  suppliers  of  web 
accessibility  services.  The  calculations  are,  therefore,  very  prudent  as  these  could  also 
possibly be received by the governments in terms of lower prices. This situation has not been 
included,  as  it  would  be  multiplying  the  number  of  scenarios.  Nonetheless,  simulation  of  a 
situation, where all the benefits would go to the governments, is pictured in the Annex VIII. 
In this simulation, the authoring tools producers and the web developers would only benefit 
from  higher  sales  volumes,  whereas  governments  would  benefit  from  lower  prices  of  web 
accessibility. 

7. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

In this chapter, the expected impacts of the three options for the web-developers, citizens and 
governments/public authorities are in relation to the general and specific objectives, following 
the numbering of the 'Obj.' in Section 4.  

In the tables the following coding applies:  '↑' stands for 'very likely'; '→' for 'to some degree'; 
'--' for 'unlikely'.  

7.1. 

In terms of the economic impacts  

Options 
2 

1 

3 

Obj. 

Web-developers:  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market 

and competition  

•  approximation  of  provisions  laid  down  by  Member  States, 
lowering barriers for economic operators to act across border 

-- 

-- 

↑ 

I, III, 
V 

Web-developers: competitiveness  
•  global competitiveness of European web-developers thanks to 

practices with a widely adopted specifications  

•  economy of scale 

Web-developers: for SME specifically  
•  opportunities for new business  

Citizens: as consumers  

-- 

-- 

-- 

→ 

→ 

↑ 

↑ 

I, III, 
V 

I, III 

→ 

↑ 

I, II, 
V 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  new way to get access to information and services  
•  their assistive technologies are fit for websites across the EU 

Public authorities including EU institutions: as buyers  
•  benefits  of  using  common  standards  and  collaborating  on 

responses to technological evolutions 

•  saving on the need to provide alternative services 
•  address  web-accessibility  in  a  systematic  way,  in  line  with 

other commitments (DAE, eGovernment Action Plan) 

•  administrative burden 

Table 12 Comparison of Economic Impacts 

7.2. 

In terms of the political impacts 

-- 
-- 

-- 

-- 
-- 

-- 

→ 
→ 

→ 

→ 
→ 

-- 

↑ 
↑ 

↑ 

↑ 
↑ 

↑ 

II, IV
V  

I, II, 
III, V

II 
II 

II 

The  expected  political  impacts  are  compared  between  the  options.  These  concern 
governments/public authorities at Member State and EU level. 

Governments: social responsibility and reputation  
•   positive effect to the society 
Governments: obligations  
•  fulfilment of commitments towards Digital Agenda 

Table 13 Comparison of Political Impacts 

7.3. 

In terms of social impacts 

Options 
2 

1 

→ 

↑ 

-- 

-- 

Obj. 

3 

↑ 

↑ 

II 

II 

The expected social impacts are compared between the options. These come about for citizens 
to the extent that the level of web-accessibility increases. 

Citizens: access to services  
•  Fundamental  Rights,  chapter  III  –  Equality;  chapter  IV  – 
Solidarity (i) right to access to placement services, (ii) Access 
to services of general economic interest 

•  UNCRPD obligations of the EU and Member States 

Citizens: social inclusion of particular groups  
•  on-line  information  and  services  become  also  accessible  to 

people with disabilities and declining abilities  

Table 14 Comparison of Social Impacts 

7.4. 

In terms of environmental impacts 

Options 
2 

3 

1 

Obj. 

-- 

-- 

↑ 

II, V 

-- 

→ 

↑ 

II 

-- 

→ 

↑ 

II, IV 

The  expected  environmental  impacts  are  compared  between  the  options.  These  largely 
concern governments/public authorities and citizens. 

Governments/citizens: providing/receiving access to services  

Options 
2 

3 

1 

Obj. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  reduced travel required 
•  reduced need for paper or other physical alternative to online 

information 

Table 15 Comparison of environmental Impacts 

7.5.  Multi-criteria Analysis 

In defining: 

-- 
-- 

→ 
→ 

↑ 
↑ 

II, IV 

II, IV 

Efficiency  -  the  relation  between  expected  Results  and  Inputs,  i.e.  the  extent  to  which 

objectives can be achieved for a given level of resources/at least cost;  

Effectiveness - the relation between Expected Impacts and Objectives, i.e. the extent to which 

options achieve the objectives of the proposal; 

Sustainability - as the sustainability of the impacts, i.e. the extent to which the impacts are 

ensured to be present in the longer-run; 

Coherence - the extent to which options are coherent with the overarching objectives of EU 
policy,  and  the  extent  to  which  they  are  likely  to  limit  trade-offs  across  the  economic, 
social, and environmental domain; 

Cost/Benefit - the net of costs and benefits. 

A summary comparison of  the policy options is presented in table 17. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Option 

Option 1 

Continuation of 
current actions for 
voluntary cooperation 

Option 2 

Recommendation  

Option 3 

Directive to 
harmonize web-
accessibility 
specifications  

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

Sustainability 

Coherence 

Costs/benefits 

No additional expenditures.  Achieving the objectives 

depends on voluntary 
commitments; unlikely to be 
realised given the history. 

Loss of political credibility 
and 'disenfranchisement' of 
interest groups (ICT 
industry, disabled, elderly,). 

Achieving the objectives 
depends on voluntary 
commitments; unlikely to be 
realised given the history. 

High risk of loss of political 
credibility and 
'disenfranchisement' of 
interest groups. 

Positive prospects of 
achieving all of the 
objectives. 

Highly credible for interest 
groups (ICT industry, 
disabled, elderly). 

Likely some cost savings 
due to lower cost of newer 
specifications; possibly 
voluntary investment by 
Member States for common 
reporting. 

Needs resources that are 
more than being offset by 
benefits depending on the 
decided conformance levels. 

Over time feedback loop in 
monitoring and experience 
sharing will reduce 
administrative costs. 

External factors may lead to 
changes on priorities of 
funding programmes and 
other policy activities putting 
continuity of implementation 
measures at risk. 

Not coherent with Digital 
Agenda (Digital Single 
Market) and Europe 2020 
(inclusive growth) 

Large net negative due to 
persistent digital exclusion 
and thereby growing 
social & economic 
exclusion. 'Costs/benefits' 
is the opposite of option 3. 

External factors may lead to 
changes on priorities of 
funding programmes and 
other policy activities putting 
continuity of implementation 
measures at risk. 

Not coherent with Digital 
Agenda (Digital Single 
Market), coherent with 
Europe 2020 (inclusive 
growth) 

Likely net negative due to 
limited impacts, and extra 
administrative burden of 
coordination. 

Strong prospects that 
necessary skills and process 
would be consolidated and 
contribute to an enduring 
implementation especially 
because of commitment and 
sharing of efforts and 
information. 

Coherent with Digital 
Agenda (Digital Single 
Market) and with Europe 
2020 (inclusive growth). 
Coherence between 
economic and 
social/political impacts. 

Large net positive for all 
actors, either on the short 
run (web-accessibility 
industry, citizens) or on 
the mid-term by 2015 or 
longer-term (public 
administrations, other 
industry). 

Table 16 Multi-criteria Analysis

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
 
7.6. 

Preferred option 

To  summarize  the  analysis:  option  1  and  2  are  assessed  to  be  ineffective,  because  they  are 
non-mandatory and incomplete with respect to the objectives. They are not likely to overcome 
fragmentation and  reduce uncertainty  sufficiently to unlock the market rapidly enough, if at 
all, to meet the political deadlines. 

Given the analysis results, option 3 is recommended as the preferred option.  

This option (binding legislation based on the 'internal market') would receive the support from 
the  ICT  industry,  as  it  has  expressed  such  views  with  certain  conditions  through  their 
umbrella organisation – Digital Europe. The latter “supports the spirit and intent of emerging 
regulatory  activity  that  encourages  technological  products  and  services  to  be  accessible  to 
people  with  disabilities  and  the  elderly.  However,  we  believe  that  regulations  must  be 
objective, attainable and standards-based […]”70.  

Support  would  be  given  also  by  citizens'  representatives,  notably  by  the  organisations 
representing  people  with  disabilities  and  elderly.  Intensive  discussions  and  requests  for 
binding legislation, for instance, are supported by recent position papers and campaigns from 
organisations, such as AGE, ANEC, EBU, and EDF (refer to their "Proposal for a Legal Act 
on Accessible Websites" in Section 1.3.1).  

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

In  addition  to  the  reporting  on  the  transposition,  Member  States  shall  monitor  the 
conformance  of  the  websites  concerned  with  the  web-accessibility  requirements  on  a 
continuous basis. A methodology will be established by the Commission, to be published in 
the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union.  Member  States  shall  annually  report  on  the 
sampling of the websites concerned and the results of their monitoring activities. Their reports 
should also include decisions on any extensions of the list of types of websites concerned, as 
well as any other additional measures they have taken.  

These  reports  and  the  outcome  of  the  foreseen  meetings  will  support  the  assessment  of  the 
results and effects of this Directive.   

8.1. 

Success criteria 

The succes criteria are those that have been defined in section 7.5. 

8.2. 

Associated indicators 

The monitoring and success indicators associated to (the expected impacts of) the General and 
Specific Objectives of this action are: 

Number of Member States and EU institutions with compliance of monitored Web-
sites  to harmonised standard 

Obj.
II, 
VI, 
VIII, 
IX 

Number  of  web-service  providers  bidding  for  public  contracts  in  a  Member  State  I 

70  Source:  Toward  an  inclusive  Information  Society.  ICT  industry  White  Paper  on  Inclusion  (Brussels,  2006).  
http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes/Third_EICTA_i2010_White_paper_eInclusion.pdf, 2006.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
different from their own (across borders) 

Number  of  European  professionals  or  enterprises  qualified  to  implement  web-
accessibility 

I, V 

Number of registered training enterprises acting in the web-accessibility domain 

Necessary  revisions  of  this  intervention  due  to  contradictory  objectives  raised  by 
auditing in connection to policy actions 

Number  and  nature  of  citizens’  complaints  related  to  the  non  accessibility  of 
Websites (such as litigation cases based on discrimination) 

I, V 

I, III, 
VII 

II, IV 

Number of requests for or use of special accommodations (non on-line channels) 

II, IV

Table 17 Overview of monitoring and success indicators 

Sources of verification would be: 

•  Future  EC  public  consultations  and  studies,  including  for  example  an  impact  report 
commissioned  to  the  EU  Committee  of  the  Regions  to  evaluate  the  impact  (e.g.  cost 
bearing, number of enterprises) at local and regional levels. 

•  Consumer organisations, organisations representing people with disabilities such as EDF, 
national organisations such as Royal National Institute of Blind People (UK), and service 
sector (e.g. Digital Media) associations. 

•  European Ombudsman and European Network of Ombudsmen, National Contact Points. 

•  Web  portal  "e-practice"  supported  by  DG  CNECT,  where 

the  community  on 
"eAccessibility practice, policy, monitoring and impact" actively promotes the exchange of 
knowledge and experiences on e-accessibility.  

•  Eurostat ESHSI (European Survey on Health and Social Integration), for data on disability 

defined in accordance with the UNCRPD and the ICF (e.g. 'e5601 Media systems'). 

•  Monitoring by Member States of a sample of the concerned websites. See Annex IX. 

8.3. 

Prospective evaluations 

Two  years  after  this  intervention  is  adopted,  an  evaluation  will  be  organised  by  a  Steering 
Group of Commission services, representatives of the Member States, and a reference group 
for experts. The terms of reference would be to access:  

•  actual effects and coherence – effectiveness of the administrative apparatus (costs);  

•  potential improvements & lessons learnt; and sustainability (functioning, lasting apparatus 

at each Member State for dealing with web-accessibility and training); 

•  context variables such as new legal basis generated by other policy areas.  

•  Developments under the European Accessibility Act initiative. 

Evaluation tools and techniques would be desk studies, interviews and surveys, followed by 
expert panels with the reference group.  

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
9. 

ANNEXES 

Annex I : Glossary 

Acronyms 

ANEC  

 Organisation representing the European consumer interest in the creation of 
technical standards, especially those to support EU laws and public policies. 

AT  

Assistive Technologies 

ATAG 

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (by W3C) 

BITV 2.0 

Barrierefreie Informationstechnik Verordnung (Germany / Barrier Free 
Information Technology Directive) 

C2C 

CEN  

Consumer to Consumer 

European Committee for Standardization (one of the European Standards 
Organisations) 

CENELEC  European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (one of the European 

Standards Organisations) 

CIP 

Competitiveness and Innovation Programme 

CIP-ICT PSP  CIP ICT Policy Support Programme (aims at stimulating innovation and 

competitiveness through the wider uptake and best use of ICT by citizens, 
governments and businesses) 

CMS 

Content Management System 

COMM 

(DG) Communication 

CNECT  

(DG) Communications Networks, Content & Technology  

CWA  

DAE 

DG 

CEN  Workshop  Agreements  (consensus-based  specifications,  drawn  up  in  an 
open Workshop environment under CEN supervision)  

Digital Agenda for Europe  

Directorate General of the European Commission 

DIGIT  

(DG) Informatics 

DTV 

Digital Television 

ECFIN  

(DG) Economic and Financial Affairs 

EMPL  

(DG) Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

EN-standard  European Standard 

ENTR   

(DG) Enterprise and Industry 

EEA 

EBU  

European Environment Agency  

European Blind Union 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
EDF 

European Disability Forum 

EN standard  European Standard 

EC 

EESC 

ESO 

European Commission 

European Economic and Social Committee 

European Standards Organisations 

ESTAT 

(DG) Eurostat, Statistical office of the European Union 

ETSI 

European  Telecommunications  Standards  Institute  (one  of  the  European 
Standards Organisations) 

EuroStat 

Statistical office of the European Union (= ESTAT) 

FP7 

Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community  for  Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration activities (2007-2013) 

FP RTD 

European Funding Program for Research and Technological Development 

FS  

GDP 

IASG 

ICF  

ICT 

IO 

ISO 

JUST   

M376 

Functional Specifications 

Gross Domestic Product 

Impact Assessment Steering Group 

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health 

Information and Communication Technology 

Information Obligation 

International Organization for Standardization 

(DG) Justice 

 Mandate 376 from the European Commission  

MARKT  

(DG) Internal Market and Services 

P2P 

PAS  

PDA 

PC 

PDF 

PPD 

R&D 

RIA  

Peer to peer (see also B2B and P2C) 

Publicly Available Specification (ISO transposition procedure) 

Personal Digital Assistant 

Personal Computer 

Portable Document Format (open standard) 

Public Procurement Directive (2004/18/EC) 

Research and Development 

Rich Internet Application 

SANCO 

(DG) Health and Consumers 

SME 

TBD 

TEC 

Small & Medium Enterprise 

Transatlantic Business Dialogue (see also TEC) 

 Transatlantic Economic Council (organising TBD) 

TFEU 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
UAA  

UAB 

UI 

User Agents Accessibility (i.e. browsers and related assistive technologies);  

United States Access Board 

User Interface 

UNCRPD 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities 

US 508 

WAI 

WCA 

"Section 508" (amendment to the US Workforce Rehabilitation Act, requiring 
that publicly procured ICT is accessible by people with disabilities..) 

Web-Accessibility Initiative 

 Web Content Accessibility 

WCAG 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 

W3C 

World Wide Web Consortium  

Terminology 

Public service – It may refer either to the actual body providing the service or to the general 
interest  role  assigned  to  the  body  concerned.  It  is  with  a  view  to  promoting  or 
facilitating  the  performance  of  the  general  interest  role  that  specific  public  service 
obligations may be imposed by the public authorities on the body rendering the service. 
These  obligations  can  be  applied  at  national  or  regional  level.  Thus,  the  term  public 
service relates to the vocation to render a service to the public in terms of what service 
is to be provided, and the term public sector (including the civil service) relates to the 
legal  status  of  those  providing  the  service  in  terms  of  who  owns  the  services.  (Ref.: 
Communication (OJ C 17, 19.1.2001)) 

Basic  public  services  –  a  list  of  common  public  services  covering  the  different  tasks  and 
interactions  of  the  public  sector  with  citizens  and  with  businesses  chosen  within  the 
annual assessment of the progress of online public service delivery across Europe; (Ref. 
The User Challenge Benchmarking - The Supply of Online Public Services71;  

National portals – a nationally organised, comprehensive one-stop gateway to public services 

(e.g. for the UK: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm)  

Services  of  general  interest  (SGI)  –  This  term  (not  found  in  the  TFEU)  covers  market  and 
non-market services, which the public authorities class as being of general interest and 
subject  to  specific  public  service  obligations.  (Ref.:  Communication  OJ  C  17, 
19.1.2001).  "These  services  are  essential  for  the  daily  life  of  citizens  and  enterprises, 
and  reflect  Europe's  model  of  society.  They  play  a  major  role  in  ensuring  social, 
economic and territorial cohesion throughout the Union and are vital for the sustainable 
development  of  the  EU  in  terms  of  higher  levels  of  employment,  social  inclusion, 
economic  growth  and  environmental  quality.  Although  their  scope  and  organisation 
vary significantly according to histories and cultures of state intervention, they can be 
defined as the services, both economic and non-economic, which the public authorities 
classify  as  being  of  general  interest  and  subject  to  specific  public  service  obligations. 
Public authorities can decide to carry out the services themselves or they can decide to 

71 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/egov_benchmark_2007.pdf 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
entrust  them  to  other  entities,  which  can  be  public  or  private,  and  can  act  either  for-
profit or not for-profit." (Ref.: COM(2007) 725 ) 

Services  of  general  economic  interest  (SGEI)  –  Term  used  in  Articles  14  and  106(2)  of  the 
TFEU  (it  is  not  defined  in  the  Treaty  or  in  secondary  legislation).  It  refers  to  market 
services,  which  the  Member  States  subject  to  specific  public  service  obligations  by 
virtue of a general interest criterion. This would tend to cover such things as transport 
networks, energy and communications. (Ref.: Communication OJ C 17, 19.1.2001 and 
White Paper COM(2004) 374 ).  
The  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  (article  36)  includes  the  SGEI  in  the 
“fundamental rights” whose access is recognized and respected.  

Annex II : Summary of public consultations 

1)  Public  Consultations  on  web-accessibility  and  other  e-accessibility 
accompanying the Communication "Towards an accessible information society" 

issues72 

– Excerpts from the report – 

The  Commission’s  2007  Communication  on  eInclusion  concluded  that  insufficient  progress 
had been made on e-accessibility in Europe and that further steps were needed. In particular, 
the Communication called on Member States to agree on a roadmap for accessibility of public 
sector  websites  and stated  that  it  would assess the need  to propose new legislation in 2008. 
The prospect of horizontal legislation on e-accessibility was also considered. 

In  this  regard,  a  public  consultation  was  launched  in  July  2008  through  the  European 
Commission’s  interactive  Internet  platform  “Your  voice”.  It  closed  in  September  2008  and 
focused  on  two  core  themes:  firstly,  to  explore  a  common  European  approach  to  web-
accessibility and secondly to elicit public opinion on  other aspects of e-accessibility  that  go 
beyond the World Wide Web and possible action at European level.  

Participants 

Overall,  161  responses  were  received.  They  represent  various  stakeholder  groups,  including 
individual  citizens  with  and  without  disabilities,  research  experts  and  centres,  public 
authorities,  business  and  industry  associations  and  user  organisations  (see  Figure  1for  the 
profile of the respondents). Some stakeholders (such as UMIC, ONCE, ANEC-EDF, BSkyB, 
RNIB) also sent position papers. In terms of geographic coverage, respondents were located 
in  18  European  Members  States,  Israel  and  the  United  States.  In  addition,  responses  were 
received from European organisations. 

72 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/policy/accessibility/com_2008/index_en.htm 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 1 Profile of respondents (n=161) 

Among  the  respondents,  the  support  for  a  common  European  approach  to  web-accessibility 
was almost unanimous. Overall, 96.9% of respondents agreed that a common approach was 
needed to facilitate a high level of availability of accessible websites, and 95.6% stated that 
this  should  be  equally  motivated  by  the  desire  to  improve  the  situation  of  people  with 
disabilities and the competitiveness of European companies. 

Concerning the type of websites that should be covered by a common European approach, a 
clear  majority  (93%)  agreed  that  such  an  approach  should  not  merely  cover  public  sector 
websites  but  also  other  websites  providing  services  of  general  interest  to  citizens,  although 
industry  and  public  authority  respondents  were  somewhat  less  affirmative.  94.9%  of 
respondents  agreed  that  intranet  websites  should  also  be  accessible.  According  to  87%  of 
respondents,  web  content  authoring  tools  should  also  be  covered  by  a  common  European 
approach to web-accessibility.  

Subjects and their positions: 

From the perspective of the technology providers, the consultation included a question on 
the current provision of technologies or services that are accessible to people with disabilities. 
86.4%  of  respondents  stated  that  they  provided  accessible  solutions,  either  as  a  standard 
offering (69.1%) or on request (17.3%). When it comes to barriers experienced when dealing 
with  accessibility  issues  from  the  perspective  of  a  technology  provider,  lack  of  demand 
(23.7%)  and  lack  of  a  harmonised  European  approach  to  web-accessibility  (21.7%)  were 
equally cited.  

In  addition,  29.6%  reported  practical  difficulties  in  implementing  technical  specifications 
concerning  web-accessibility  as  a  barrier,  while  10.3%  mentioned  the  lack  of  suitable 
technical specifications. Implementation costs were cited as a barrier by 9.3%. 

From the perspective of people with disabilities, the public consultation included a question 
on problems encountered in web-accessibility and the extent to which such problems act as a 
barrier  to  using  websites  for  one’s  own  purposes.  The  majority  of  respondents  stated  that 
websites were either totally (10.4%) or partially (47.9%) inaccessible.  

Regarding the impact of no accessibility, 72.6% stated that it would result in exclusion from 
important information, facilities or  services, either severely (29.7%) or moderately (42.9%). 
About 7% stated they would find other ways to access information, facilities and services. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
From the perspective of website owners, questions were asked about the level of awareness 
of the issue of accessibility and its implications for users, as well as concrete steps taken to 
improve  accessibility  of  their  websites.  82%  of respondents  stated  they  were  fully  aware  of 
these issues and 14.8% reported at least partial awareness. As for steps taken to improve the 
accessibility of their websites, 90.5% of respondents stated that they had taken concrete steps. 

The comments submitted suggest that the web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG 1.0) 
developed by the W3C consortium are widely used as a key reference point for this purpose. 

Concluding remarks: 

Overall,  a  common  European  approach  to  web-accessibility  received  very  strong  support. 
Almost  unanimously,  respondents  agreed  that  this  approach  was  needed  to  facilitate  a  high 
level of availability of accessible websites, and it should be equally motivated by the desire to 
improve the situation of people with disabilities and improve the competitiveness of European 
companies.  

When it comes to particular types of websites that should be covered by a common European 
approach, a clear majority agreed that this approach should not merely concern public sector 
websites  but  also  other  websites  providing  services  of  general  interest  to  the  citizen.  Also, 
there was strong support for making intranet websites accessible and web content authoring 
tools should also be covered by a common European approach to web-accessibility. In doing 
so, meeting international standards was deemed important by a clear majority. Finally, a clear 
majority would also welcome accompanying measures (e.g., capacity building by supply side 
actors, provision of information and guidance to users, exchanging best practice and collation 
of user input). 

In  relation  to  other  ICT  domains,  again  a  clear  majority  would  welcome  further  EU-level 
action.  Regarding  how  this  should  be  addressed,  the  responses  received  were  more  varied. 
About half of the respondents considered binding legislation as a high priority approach, 
whereas  non-binding  legislation  was  highly  prioritised  by  about  one  quarter.  Other  than 
legislation, various other measures such as standardisation, benchmarking, exchanging good 
practice and research received comparably high levels of support from respondents. 

2) Consultation workshops on web-accessibility and e-accessibility73 

– Excerpts from the report Summary of Outcomes – 

This workshop was held with stakeholders and separately with Member States representatives 
in 2008. It followed two others on eAccessibility held in 2007.  

With regard to the "Summary of outcomes on the sessions on web-accessibility", in particular 
the  "Rationale  for  EU-level  Intervention",  an  EU-level  intervention  in  the  field  of  web-
accessibility was unanimously appreciated by the workshop participants.  

There  was,  however,  some  debate  on  the  preferred  nature  of  such  an  intervention.  Some 
Member States’ representatives, notably those from France and the Netherlands, called for a 
non-binding  EU  recommendation.  The  argument  was  brought  forward  that  such  an 
intervention  would  deliver  needed  guidance  to  the  Member  States,  while  at  the  same  time 
leave  sufficient  flexibility  to  address  the  web-accessibility  theme  in  the  context  of  their 

73 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/consultation-workshop-web-accessibility-10-june-2008 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
particular national situation. In relation to the Netherlands, it was stressed that the market was 
not yet  ready for any binding  legislation in this field, one important reason  being that there 
was  not  enough  knowledge  and  organisational  capacity  on  the  part  of  website  owners  to 
actually  implement  existing  web-accessibility  guidelines  such  as  WCAG  1.0.  Legislation 
alone  would  thus  not  guarantee  any  progress  on  the  ground.  It  was  felt  that  rather  than 
legislation, a  “culture  change”  among web owner and developer communities was  required. 
Measurement of compliance was also mentioned as a challenge in this context. In relation to 
web-accessibility policy pursued in France, it was stressed that an EU-level recommendation 
would be helpful in convincing the private sector about the relevance of the web-accessibility 
theme through setting a good example in the public domain which could then be followed by 
commercial website owners on a voluntary basis. 

User  representatives,  notably  from  EDF,  ANEC  and  AGE,  expressed  their  concerns  that  a 
non-binding  EU-level  intervention  would  not  yield  the  desired  effects.  It  was  recalled  that 
progress in the Member States was insufficient despite the fact that these had already made a 
clear commitment concerning accessibility of public sector websites in the framework of the 
Riga  Ministerial  Declaration.  It  was  argued  that  the  Commission’s  benchmarking  study 
showed  a  positive  link  between  the  existence  of  legislation  and  levels  of  accessibility 
achieved  on  the  ground,  and  that  standardised  technical  guidance  on  how  to  practically 
achieve  web-accessibility  was  available  in  terms  of  W3C  guidelines.  An  EU  Directive  was 
called for in order to effectively address the current lack of implementation. It was argued that 
such an instrument would also leave flexibility to the Member States to cater for any national 
peculiarities. Concerns were expressed that there was a risk of further fragmentation without 
binding intervention by the European Commission. 

Further  issues  were  highlighted  by  other  workshop  participants.  It  was  stressed  that  by 
providing  focus,  an  EU-level  intervention  might  help  to  overcome  ambiguity  that  was 
observable in relation to existing national legislation, e.g. when it comes to provision made in 
relation  to  compliance.  As  an  example,  it  was  mentioned  that  the  Disability  Discrimination 
Act in the UK would not refer to compliance at all. Also, it was stressed that there was a need 
for  harmonisation  in  the  field  of  assistive  technologies,  regardless  of  which  type  of 
intervention instrument ultimately was to be used. Further, it was argued that kiosk and self-
service technology increasingly relied upon internet technologies and that there was a general 
lack  of  awareness  of  e-accessibility  issues  among  technology  provider  and  related 
communities. 

3)  Public  consultation  -  "Economic  Assessment  for  Improving  e-Accessibility  Services 
and Products" (SMART 2009/00-72) 

•  Please refer to http://www.eaccessibility-impacts.eu/ 

4)  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 2009/0068)74  

– Excerpts from the Executive Summary of the report – 

74http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/web_access_compliance/index_en.

htm 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This survey in the form of a study was commissioned to provide data and analysis to support 
the European Commission in the identification of EU-level measures that can help to progress 
the achievement of greater levels of web-accessibility across the Member States.  

The main methods used in gathering the data and information presented in the report were: 

•  collection  of  information  on  the  national  situations  in  selected  Member  States  (through 

desk research and information provided by official contacts) 

•  examination of compliance with WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 guidelines for a representative sample 

of websites. 

•  The  aim  was  to  provide  evidence  and  analysis  to  help  understand  and  compare  the 
approaches  followed  by  the  European  countries,  with  a  view  to  identifying  issues  and 
challenges, good practices and future priorities in the web-accessibility field. 

Evidences: 

See  tables  below  for  an  overview  of  Accessibility-related  obligations  imposed  in  selected 
Member States and the specified time-frame for achieving obligation. This has been updated 
in December 2011 by members of the INCOM group. 

Country  Hard law 

(may be 
complemented 
by other 
measures) 

Other 
measure 
only  

AT 

X 

Parties / websites addressed 

All  Web  services  of  public  sector  (e.g.  ministries,  cities,  local  collectives,  public 
organisations,  schools,  hospitals)  at  the  national,  regional  and  local  level  providing 
information and transaction services  

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

X 

Selected priority websites in the Walloon region 

Government websites available to the public and intranets in the Flemish region 

n.a. 

X 

X 

Websites of public authorities directed to the public. It concerns authorities acting on 
the federal (government organizations) and local level (regions, municipalities) too. 

Websites of the federal government and publicly accessible intranet websites owned or 
operated by federal public administrations (Note: A federal law regulates compliance 
of websites at the federal administrative level and does not apply to the regional and 
local  administrative  level.  However,  many  regions  seem  to  have  adopted  similar 
legislation by now) 

X 

Websites maintained by the public administration the national, regional and local level 

EL 

(X) 

ES 

X 

EE 

FI 

X 

Potentially  public  administration  websites  at  all  administrative  levels  (Note:  Since 
2001  the  constitution  guarantees  the  right  for  everyone  to  participate  in  the 
Information Society, but no concrete legislation seems to have emerged from this yet) 

Websites owned by public bodies, websites funded with public money and websites of 
organisations  that  manage  public  services  at  national  and  regional  level.  (Note:  The 
central  government  has  competence  to  regulate  general  conditions  of  accessibility, 
while the regions [Autonomous Regions] seem to have competence to further develop 
these basic conditions) 

X 

Public sector websites (Note: From the evidence available it is not clear whether the 
federal and local levels are concerned) 

Websites of public sector bodies concerned with administrative, juridical, prosecution 
and enforcement matters (Note: From the evidence available it is not clear whether the 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Hard law 

(may be 
complemented 
by other 
measures) 

Other 
measure 
only  

Parties / websites addressed 

FR 

X 

HU 

(X) 

IE 

X 

IT 

X 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

X 

NL 

PL 

PT 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

RO 

X 

SE 

X 

federal and local levels are concerned) 

Websites  and  electronic  publications  of  public  bodies  that  provide  information  and 
services to the public. 

Potentially  public  administration  websites  at  the  national,  regional  and  local  level 
(Note: Act 1998 XXVI on “The Rights of Disabled and on Ensuring Their Equality” 
does not impose a direct eAccessibility obligation but seems to have been influential in 
encouraging public agencies to make their websites accessible) 

Websites of public agencies that provide services to the public at federal, regional and 
local  level  at  least  potentially  (Note:  the  current  legislation  falls  short  on  a  direct 
statement of an obligation to make public websites accessible, code of practice refers 
however to WCAG AA conformance as good practice) 

Websites  of  public  administration  services  which  make  use  of  computer  and  data 
transmission  and  of  services  in  the  public  interest  at  the  national,  regional  and 
municipal level. (Note: The law explicitly applies to educational and didactic materials 
used in all schools and at every level which may include intranet sites)  

(Methodological 

Websites  of  the  national  government,  local  authorities  and  public  institutions.  The 
standard 
implementation  and 
maintenance of websites for disabled) foresees advisory (non-mandatory) requirements 
for adapting private websites for the needs of disabled. Legal acts in Lithuania do not 
provide  any  measures  to  encourage  implementation  of  the  standard  requirements  on 
private websites.  

recommendation 

for  design 

Websites  of  the  national  government/administration  (Note:  From  the  evidence 
available it is not clear whether the federal and local levels are concerned) 

Websites of the public administration  

 All  web  services  of  the  public  sector  (e.g. ministries, cities,  local  collectives,  public 
organisations, schools, hospitals) at the national and local level providing information 
and transaction services to the public.  

Websites of the national government/administration (Note: websites of the provinces, 
water  boards  and  the  municipalities  are  addressed  by  means  of  subsequent  formal 
agreement)  

Websites  of  '  entities  performing  public  tasks'  have  to  remove  legal  and  procedural 
barriers  in  access  to  services  offered  by  public  entities  to  citizens,  particularly  the 
disabled.  A  law  that  was  adapted  in  June  2010  sets  requirements  for  public 
administration  websites  that  allow  people  with  disabilities,  including  blind  and 
partially  sighted  people  tot  easily  use  them.  These  regulations  are  concerned  with 
public tasks at the federal and local administrative levels. 

Websites of public bodies providing services to the public at the national, regional an 
local level  

Websites  of  national  government/administration  entities  providing  information  and 
services  to  the  public  at  national,  regional  and  local  level.  In  2009,  the  Ministry  of 
Communications  and  Information  Society  issued  a  guide  for  all  public  authorities, 
including  general  recommendations  on  websites  accessibility  features,  such  as  the 
appliance  of  W3C  and  web-accessibility  Initiative  specifications.  The  Ministry  of 
Labour, Family and Social Protection monitors the appliance of the above-mentioned 
legal provisions. 

Websites of public authorities providing information and services to the public on the 
national  level.  There  are  no  obligations  on  local  and  regional  level.  There  are 
guidelines for national authorities (and others) on web-accessibility that are currently 
being updated. The updated guidelines will be following WCAG 2.0 level AA. There 
is  no  goal  with  a  time  frame  in  Sweden  but  all  authorities  under  the  government 
(national  level)  are  obliged  to  promote  accessibility  of  information  through  action 
plans and follow up for people with disability.  

SI 

X 

Websites of the national public administration (Note: From the evidence available it is 
not clear whether the federal and local levels are concerned) 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Hard law 

(may be 
complemented 
by other 
measures) 

Other 
measure 
only  

SK 

UK 

X 

X 

Parties / websites addressed 

Websites of national government/administration providing information and services to 
the public at national, regional and local level 

Websites  of  public  bodies  providing  services  and  information  to  the  public  at  the 
national, regional and local level  

Table 18 Scope of legislation (situation as per July 2008, source Study SMART 2007/0056 - see item 9 in this Annex - and 
updated in December 2011) 

Year 

Country 

2005 

DE, BE (priority sites selected in the Walloon region) 

2006 

IT, NL/SK (new websites) 

2007 

ES (WCAG A), RO, UK (new websites), BE (websites of the Flemish regional government) 

2008 

AT, CZ, DK, ES (WCAG AA), PT, UK/SK (existing websites) 

2010 

EE, NL (existing websites), SI 

2011 

FI (websites of national public services) 

2012 

FR (websites of local public services) 

Table 19 Specified time frame for implementing accessibility standard at national level (situation as per July 2008, source Study 
SMART 2007/0056 - see item 9 in this Annex - and updated in December 2011). 

Main Conclusions: 

(cid:130)  Levels of full compliance with existing web-accessibility guidelines (generally WCAG 1.0 
based)  remain  very  low  and,  at  current  rates  of  progress,  the  web-accessibility  situation 
across the EU seems set to fall far short of the targets set for 2010 in the Riga Ministerial 
Declaration;  however,  some  more  hidden  progress  towards  accessibility  (for  government 
websites  at  least)  seems  to  be  detectable  which  is  not  being  picked  up  by  metrics  that 
simply apply a 'pass/fail' logic 

(cid:130)  Websites often fail to maintain compliance over time - sites that pass the accessibility tests 

at one time often fail when measured at another time 

(cid:130)  The  scope  of  coverage  of  existing  web-accessibility  legislation/regulations  varies  across 
the Member States: in most countries, central government websites are covered but there is 
a lot more variability as regards coverage of other levels of governance; also, coverage of 
websites of non-governmental services of 'public interest' is a lot more limited 

(cid:130)  WCAG  2.0  may  well  ultimately  bring  positive  benefits  in  terms  of  the  levels  of 
accessibility that are supported but the process of implementing the new guidelines is seen 
in many Member States to give rise to new challenges 

(cid:130)  Careful  consideration  needs  to  be  given  to  developing  an  effective  transitioning  process 
and timeframe, that interweaves as un-problematically as possible with existing efforts and 
timeframes associated with the current standards/guidelines that have been applied in the 
Member States 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
(cid:130)  A  variety  of  actions  at  EU-level  that  have  been  suggested  by  the  parties  concerned  in 
Member  States  could  help  in  the  transitioning  process  as  well  as  in  supporting  the 
achievement of web-accessibility goals more generally. 

Possible EU policy actions: 
* Improving compliance assessment 

(cid:130)  As  regards  compliance  assessments  conducted  by  the  Member  States,  there  is  scope  for 
supporting  the  development  of  a  common  approach  at  the  European  level  in  terms  of 
samples covered (including levels of governance addressed) and methods employed, with a 
view to enable coordinated tracking of progress across countries. This was something that 
was explicitly suggested by some of the Member State officials that were consulted as part 
of this study 

(cid:130)  Consider  establishing  an  EU-supported  exercise  (study/working  group,  for  example)  to 
examine the scope for more refined metrics in this field, with a view to enable tracking of 
useful  progress  over  time  even  if  full  and  exhaustive  compliance  may  not  have  been 
achieved by a website. Such an approach could be a pragmatic one, geared towards better 
recognising and documenting positive achievements in terms of improved accessibility for 
users even if the achieved level of accessibility is still not 'perfect'. The need for more EU-
level  attention  to  the  metrics  used  in  this  field  is  reinforced  by  the  finding  that  some 
Member States are already adopting more pragmatic approaches in a variety of ways and 
the issue has also emerged in public web owner discourse in some countries. 

(cid:130)  Give  more  attention  and  visibility  to  the  'churn'  issue  in  policy  -  raise  awareness  and 
support  dialogue  on  how  sustainability  of  accessibility  achievements  can  be  maintained 
over time 

(cid:130)  Engage  in  dialogue  with  Member  States  with  a  view  to  arriving  at  a  common  view  on 
which  types  of  non-government  websites  can  be  considered  as  being  of  key  ‘public 
interest’, and on how to better reach these in web-accessibility efforts at the national level. 
The  evidence  suggests  that,  in  general,  such  sites  are  making  less  progress  towards 
accessibility than are government websites (at least in the countries covered). There may 
also  be  merit  in  directly  involving  umbrella  organisations  representing  relevant  actor 
groupings at the European level, e.g. the media industry, the banking industry, the transport 
industry,  the  retail  industry,  the  internet  services  industry,  the  telecommunications 
industry, the educational sector and other such players. 

(cid:130)  Provide support for a larger-scale exercise to assess the extent of additional effort required 
to achieve WCAG 2.0 compliance given the current baseline situation as regards WCAG 
1.0  compliance  levels.  In  the  meantime,  the  findings  from  this  study  that,  as  might  be 
expected, effort spent on working to achieve compliance with WCAG 1.0 is likely to place 
websites  in  a  position  where  less  effort  will  be  required  to  bring  them  to  WCAG  2.0 
compliance  are  important.  Even  if  necessarily  only  of  an  indicative  value  for  now,  this 
could be helpful in the context of concerns to ensure that existing efforts by web owners 
towards WCAG 1.0 will not be wasted when WCAG 2.0 criteria are introduced  

* Progressing web-accessibility in general 

(cid:130) 

Initiate consultation with the Member States on (as far as appropriate in coordination with 
work  currently  conducted  under  Mandate  376 
the  European  Standardisation 
Organisations) on: 

to 

•   the types of websites to be covered by national obligations at a minimum 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
•   realistic  time  frames  that  can  be  achieved  by  the  various  website  owner  groupings 

concerned 

•   a common approach towards accessibility criteria that could be taken up in national 

guidelines/standards 

•   a  common  approach  towards  the  provision  of  accessibility  information  (e.g.  web-

accessibility statement and guidance) on public and other websites. 

(cid:130)  Consolidate experiences gained in the Member States in relation to awareness-raising and 
capacity-building  geared  towards  specific  actor  groupings  such  as  decision-makers  at 
policy level, web managers/masters, the web designer community and the like in order to 
bring these experiences into the process of dialogue with Member States. 

(cid:130)  There  is  scope  for  supporting  the  development  of  guidance  and  tools  to  support 
stakeholders in putting intra-organisational processes in place that enable implementation 
and  sustained  maintenance  of  web-accessibility  over  time.  This  concerns  both  the  public 
sector  (e.g.  government  agencies)  and  the  commercial  sector  (e.g.  industries  that  can  be 
considered as being of ‘public interest’). 

* Transitioning to WCAG 2.0 guidelines 

(cid:130) 

Initiate consultation with the Member States on: 

• 

how  to  achieve  a  common  approach  in  relation  to  technical  aspects  of  the 
transition  to  WCAG  2.0  (updating  of  national  standards/guidelines,  compliance 
assessment and benchmarking approaches to be adopted, etc.) 

• 

establishment of common compliance targets and timeframes to be imposed. 

(cid:130) 

Implement measures to support progress on specific technical aspects: 

• 

• 

support  for  the  development  of  a  common  European  WCAG  2.0  compliance 
assessment and benchmarking approach 

support  for  the  development  of  an  agreed  mapping  between  WCAG  1.0  and 
WCAG 2.0 criteria for given levels of compliance. 

(cid:130) 

Implement a programme of practical accompanying measures: 

• 

• 

EU-level  driven  awareness-raising  and  support  for  training  of  the  stakeholders 
across Europe 

establish  and  operate  a  mechanism/forum  for  Member  States  to  exchange 
experiences:  both  an  online  environment  and  a  regular  face-to-face  forum  could 
be considered in this context. 

5)  Benchmarking  study  –  Measuring  Progress  of  eAccessibility  in  Europe  (MEAC, 
2007)75 

– Excerpts from the report – 

75 Empirica, WRC, RNIB, RNID, eWORX (2007), 
 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/assessment-status-eaccessibility-europe 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
This  study  was  commissioned  as  part  of  the  follow-up  to  the  European  Commission’s 
Communication  on  eAccessibility  of  2005.  This  Communication  highlighted  the  need  for 
improving access to ICTs by people with disabilities; and it announced such a follow-up on 
the eAccessibility situation to be made two years afterwards, at which time the Commission 
could consider additional measures (e.g. a legislative intervention).  

The  report  provided  the  results  of  an  extensive  benchmarking  exercise  and  analysis  on  the 
status  and  progress  of  eAccessibility  in  Europe.  See  in  particular  its  Annex  II  –  Policy 
Inventory. The report clearly showed that insufficient progress has been achieved.  

Highlight Results: 

Overall,  the  results  showed  that  there  was  only  limited  progress  towards  eAccessibility 
detected  in  Europe,  and  further  EU-level  measures  needed  to  be  considered  to  stimulate 
progress in eAccessibility. Three key findings underpinned this conclusion: 

The  eAccessibility  ‘deficit’  –  People  with  disabilities  in  Europe  continue  to  be  confronted 
with many barriers to usage of the everyday ICT products and services that are now essential 
elements  of  social  and  economic  life.  Such  eAccessibility  deficits  can  be  found  across  the 
spectrum  of  ICT  products  and  services,  for  example  telephony,  TV,  web  and  self-service 
terminals.  

The  eAccessibility  'gap'  –  From  a  comparative  perspective,  the  eAccessibility  situation  for 
people with disabilities across Europe as a whole, in terms of both eAccessibility status and 
eAccessibility policy, compares very unfavourably with that comparison countries examined 
in the MeAC study (for instance, USA and Canada).  

The eAccessibility ‘patchwork’ – The situation across Europe for both eAccessibility status 
and  eAccessibility  policy  is  very  much  a  patchwork  at  present.  The  overall  picture  shows 
many  important  gaps,  uneven  attention  across  the  spectrum  of  eAccessibility  themes,  and 
wide disparities across the Member States.  

6) Benchmarking Study 2010-2011 – "Monitoring eAccessibility " (MEAC-2)76  

the  eAccessibility  status  situation as  well  as on  detailed 
A  subsequent report  on 
country profiles  were  elaborated  in  2008.  The  evidence  collated  suggests  that  no  significant 
changes in the overall eAccessibility status have taken place since 2007.  

8)  Study  "Economic  Assessment  for  Improving  e-Accessibility  Services  and  Products" 
(SMART 2009/0072) 77 

9)  Study  "Accessibility  of  ICT  products  and  services  to  Disabled  and  Older  People  - 
Evidence-based  analysis  for  a  possible  co-ordinated  European  approach  to  web-
accessibility " (SMART 2007/0056)78 

– Abridged excerpts from the report – 

Conclusions: 

76 http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/ 
77http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-economic-assessment-and-evaluation-recommendations-

improving-e-accessibility-services-and 

78 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/docs/access/comm_2008/coordinated_appr
oach.doc 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The analysis shows that reinforced efforts to achieve greater web-accessibility are needed in 
Europe. Levels of web-accessibility across Europe remain very low and it is unlikely that the 
targets  set  by  the  Member  States  in  the  Riga  Ministerial  Declaration  (that  all  public  sector 
websites  should  be  accessible  by  2010)  will  be  met  without  a  coordinated  intervention  to 
accelerate progress. Progress across the Member States is uneven and there is considerable 
fragmentation  in  the  approaches  being  implemented.  The  emerging  situation  presents 
barriers  to  optimal  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  areas  such  as  cross-border 
shopping, procurement of web-development products and services, and free movement of the 
many citizens with eAccessibility needs. 

A key factor underlying the lack of sufficient progress in Europe has been the wide variation 
in  approaches  and  degree  of  prioritisation  of  web-accessibility  across  the  Member 
States.  Some  countries  have  quite  strong  legislation  or  policy  statements  but  have  not  yet 
implemented much in the way of follow-up measures to ensure that the policy objectives are 
achieved; others have made only quite general policy statements without putting any concrete 
measures in place. Only a minority of countries can be considered to have strong legislation 
supported  by  extensive  follow-up  measures.  The  evidence  shows  that  the  best  results  are 
being  achieved  in  this  group  of  countries.  A  coordinated  European  approach  aiming  to 
encourage  best  practice  across  all  Member  States  would  therefore  be  expected  to  make  a 
substantial  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  that  have  been  set  at  the  Riga 
Ministerial Declaration. 

Importantly, the analysis also shows that implementation of web-accessibility can generally 
be expected to present a very favourable cost-benefit return for governments overall as 
well  as  for  individual  public  organisations  and  for  many  business  sectors.  The  benefits 
can  be  achieved  through  the  extended  reach  that  accessibility  provides,  not  just  amongst 
disabled  and  older  people  with  specific  accessibility  needs  but  also  amongst  a  much  wider 
range of users, such as those with older technologies or software, those using mobile or other 
small display devices and those without broadband connections. Lack of awareness and skills 
amongst web owners and web developers of the benefits of accessible web design, and of the 
close  overlaps  between  accessible  design  and  good  design  more  generally,  is  one  of  the 
biggest barriers to the achievement of the substantial benefits on offer. This seems to be a key 
factor underlying the low levels of accessibility currently being achieved and also the fact that 
many websites fail to maintain accessibility once it has been achieved.  

Against  this  background,  there  is  a  strong  case  to  be  made  for  better  coordination  of  web-
accessibility  efforts  across  the  Member  States.  Key  objectives  for  a  coordinated  European-
wide  effort  would  include  the  achievement  of  rapid  improvement  in  levels  of  web-
accessibility  in  all  Member  States, support for the internal market in aspects linked to web-
accessibility,  and  measures  to  ensure  sustainability  and  future-proofing  of  web-accessibility 
efforts in Europe. 

Ultimately a legislative approach may be required to achieve the levels of progress and 
coordination that are needed. Such an approach would be consistent with many of the key 
policies  and  objectives  of  the  European  Union,  including  internal  market  and  freedom  of 
movement,  consumer  policy,  the  Lisbon  Strategy  for  the  knowledge  society  and  the  social 
agenda,  as  well  as  the  more  specific  fields  of  equality/non-discrimination  and  the 
implementation of commitments under the UNCRPD.  

In  the  meantime,  reinforcement  of  non-legislative  measures  can  make  an  important 
contribution.  These  might  include  a  renewed  and  reinforced  OMC-type  approach  as  well  as 
supporting measures in standardisation and other areas.  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
Against  this  background,  the  analysis  presented  in  Chapter  4  examines  a  number  of 
dimensions that could be addressed in a coordinated approach. Based on this, it is suggested 
that although the main focus might be especially on websites of public services and websites 
of  services  of  general  interest,  the  scope  of  a  coordinated  approach  could  also  include 
intranets  and  Public  Internet  Access  Points.  As  regards  Member  State  approaches,  a 
coordinated  effort  to  encourage  the  implementation  of  a  combination  of  'top-down' 
approaches (that impose direct obligations on web owners) and 'bottom-up' approaches (that 
give  users  rights  of  complaint  and  support  them  in  various  ways,  such  as  provision  of 
information  about  the  accessibility  of  websites)  could  be  envisaged.  This  should  also 
encourage the utilisation of public procurement as an important mechanism in support of the 
achievement of wider web-accessibility. 

EU-level support for various other actions could also be envisaged, such as encouraging and 
supporting  the  efforts  to  develop  appropriate  European  web-accessibility  standards  and 
associated  conformance  testing  mechanisms,  introduction  of  common  web-accessibility 
monitoring and reporting procedures (including the possibility of better metrics for assessing 
web-accessibility),  and  programmes  to  increase  awareness  and  skills  amongst  web  owners, 
designers and other key players. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

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

1. Policy and actions at EU level that have a bearing on e-Accessibility  

•  Public  Procurement  Directive  (2004/18/EC)79:  Article  23.1  on  Technical  specifications 
assumes, in the case of public service contracts technical, specifications as those "defining 
the required characteristics of a service such as design for all requirements and conformity 
assessment".  It  also  establishes  that  "whenever  possible,  these  technical  specifications 
should be defined so as to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities 
or design for all users". 

Public Procurement can give leverage to a broader uptake of web-accessibility. However, 
this  provision  does  not  oblige  contracting  authorities  to  do  so.  Furthermore,  the 
enforcement of a common technical specification (standard) does not apply. 

The  Directive  is  in  a  revision  process,  and  the  reform  will  look  into  the  issue  of  using 
public  procurement  to  pursue  social  goals  (vide  Commission's  Green  Paper  on  the 
modernisation  of  EU  public  procurement  policy80,  from  Jan  2011).  With  positive 
prospects,  it  can  bestow  significant  leverage  of  accessibility  in  the  web-accessibility 
market. However, website development that is not outsourced could not be addressed. 

•  The  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  (2010/13/EU81)  –  Article  7,  which  establishes 
that Member States shall encourage media service providers to ensure that their services are 
gradually made accessible to people with a visual or hearing disability. This ' soft' message 
does not create solid prospects of increased market opportunities. In any case, it refers to 
accessibility but not to web-accessibility. 

•  The R&TTE Directive (1999/5/EC, on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal 
equipment  and  the  mutual  recognition  of  their  conformity82)  –  Article  3.3.(f),  which 
establishes that the Commission may decide that apparatus within certain equipment classes 
or apparatus  of  particular types  shall be  so constructed  that  it supports certain  features in 
order to facilitate its use by users with a disability. 

•  Directive  on  Electronic  Commerce  (2000/31/EC83)  –  Pursuant  Article  16  Codes  of  Conduct,  the 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  shall  consult  associations  representing  the  visually  impaired 
and disabled in order to take account of their specific needs in the drafting and implementation of 
codes  of  conduct.  Its  implementation  may  positively  contribute  to  an  increased  demand  on 
the web-accessibility market. 

•  Directive  2009/140/EC  amending  the  Authorisation  Directive  (2002/20/EC,  on  the 
authorisation  of  electronic  communications  networks  and  services84),  whose  referred 
consumer  protection  rules  include  conditions  on  accessibility  for  users  with  disabilities. 
Nevertheless, measures are not focused on web-accessibility. 

 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0015:FIN:EN:PDF 

79 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:134:0114:0240:EN:PDF 
80
81 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:EN:PDF 
82 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:091:0010:0028:en:PDF 
83 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:178:0001:0016:EN:PDF 
84 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0037:0069:EN:PDF 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  The  Universal  Service  Directive  (2002/22/EC85),  which  establishes  special  measures  for 
disabled users to undertakings, who provide publicly available electronic communications 
networks  and  services.  Despite,  an  Amending  Act  in  2009  (Directive  2009/136/EC,  in 
particular Article 1.17), web-accessibility remains not covered. 

•  Employment  Directive  (2000/78/EC86)  –  Article  5,  which  establishes  that  in  order  to 
guarantee  compliance  with  the  principle  of  equal  treatment,  'reasonable  accommodation' 
shall  be  provided.  This  means  that  (public  and  private)  employers  shall  take  appropriate 
measures, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in 
employment. The implementation positively contributes to increasing demand on the web-
accessibility market. 

•  Copyright  Directive  (2001/29/EC87)  –  Article  5,  which  allows  Member  States  to  provide 
exceptions in author's rights related to reproduction of their works, allowing for these to be 
reproduced  in  any  form  (alternative  accessible  medium)  for  the  benefit  of  people  with  a 
disability, to the extent required by the specific disability.  

•  The  Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 
between  persons  irrespective  of  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation  – 
COM(2008)42688  –  Article  4  proposes  non-discriminatory  access  to  the  services  that  are 
available  to  the  public.  It  clearly  refers  to  web-accessibility  in  its  Impact  assessment,  but 
the  scope  only  refers  to  services  offered  for  remuneration.  It  is  before  the  Council.  Even 
after  adoption,  the  anti-discrimination  approach,  while  contributing  to  improve  web-
accessibility, could not tackle the challenge of a fragmented market, as it would focus on 
addressing  discrimination  of  individuals  and  could  not  encompass  harmonised  technical 
solutions.  

•  Council Directive (2006/112/EC89) on the common system of value added tax – Annex III, 
which  provides  a  list  of  goods  and  services  to  which  reduced  rates  may  be  applied  for 
products for the exclusive personal use of the disabled.  

•  The  Structural  Funds  Regulations90  -  Article  16,  which  require  that  "accessibility  for 
disabled  persons  shall  be  one  of  the  criteria  to  be  observed  in  defining  operations  co-
financed  by  the  Funds  and  to  be  taken  into  account  during  the  various  stages  of 
implementation."  It  sets  clear  obligations  when  funds  are  used  to  develop  websites  but 
these  cannot  harmonise  the  market.  Although  implementation  positively  contributes  to 
increasing demand on the web-accessibility market. 

•  Europe 2020 Strategy flagships: 

•  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe  with  the  mentioned  action  as  well  as  relevant  other 

actions in the field of e-accessibility (in its pillar 6).  

85 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0022:EN:NOT 
86 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0078:en:HTML 
87 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF 
88 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0426:FIN:EN:PDF 
89 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006L0112:20100409:EN:PDF 
90 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/regulation/pdf/2007/general/ce_1083(2006
)_en.pdf 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Innovation  Union  (notably,  its  pilot  European  Innovation  Partnership  on  active 
and healthy ageing depends among other elements on digital accessibility for the 
elderly;  

•  New Skills for Jobs (new skills often meaning digital or digitally-acquired skills). 

Action  Title 

63 

64 

65 

67 

Systematically  evaluate  accessibility  in  revisions  of  legislation  undertaken 
under the Digital Agenda, e.g. eCommerce, eIdentity & eSignature, following the 
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

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 

Facilitate by 2012, in cooperation with Member States and relevant stakeholders, 
a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  on  Digital  Access  for  persons  with 
disabilities in compliance with the UN Convention 

Member States: Implement by 2011 the provisions on disability in the Telecoms 
Framework and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 

Table 20 The relevant actions of DAE pillar Digital Literacy, Skills and Inclusion 

•  The  European  Disability  Strategy  2010-2020  adopted  in  November  2010,  which  has 
'Accessibility' as a main area for action. Relevant actions refer to the DAE's commitments 
on web-accessibility. It also puts forward actions to comply with the UNCRPD obligations 
within EU institutions; the list of actions includes improving accessibility of websites.  

⇒  The  announced  ‘European  Accessibility  Act’  (proposal  foreseen  for  the  end  of  2012) 
could  refer  to  an  adopted  web-accessibility  measure  when  addressing  accessibility  of 
websites in relation to services.  

•  Commission's Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy91, from 
Jan 2011, which realized a consultation that included questions on the use by contracting 
authorities of the possibilities concerning accessibility criteria for persons with disabilities. 

2. Other Inter-/National Initiatives 

•  The  Global  Initiative  for  Inclusive  ICTs  (G3ICT)  White  Paper  "Web-accessibility  policy 
making:  an  international  perspective"92  identifies  relevant  initiatives  and  best  practices, 
which  have  been  adopted  by  15  countries  (including  USA,  Japan,  and  6  EU  Member 
States). For policy makers, it advises having a set of policies that focuses on the issue of 
web-accessibility  co-living  with  or  as  part  of  another  more  comprehensive  addressing  e-
accessibility.  It  advocates  the  forming  of  a  systemized  forum  to  review  and  monitor  the 

91 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0015:FIN:EN:PDF 
92 http://g3ict.com/download/p/fileId_811/productId_150; Dec 2009  

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
implementations  as  well  as  review  changes  to  the  policy,  in  the  light  of  any  changes  in 
standards (WCAG) or additional requirements. 

Annex IV : WCAG and Realizing e-Accessibility 

The de-facto reference standard Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 

The Web-Accessibility Initiative (WAI) by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)93 is an 
international  cooperation  establishing  technical  specifications  in  web-accessibility.  It  is 
sponsored by governments and industry such as the European Commission's FP and the USA 
Department  of  Education's  National  Institute  on  Disability  and  Rehabilitation  Research. 
WAI  offers  three  accessibility  guidelines:  (1)  Web  Content  Accessibility  Guidelines 
(WCAG),  (2)  Authoring  Tool  Accessibility  Guidelines  (ATAG),  and  (3)  User  Agent 
Accessibility  Guidelines  (UAAG)  94.  WCAG  2.0,  the  latest  version,  was  adopted  in 
December 2008. 

The  WCAG  2.0  is  organized  around  four  design  principles  –  perceivable,  operable, 
understandable, and robust – related to access and use of Web content. Each principle sets 
'guidelines', and each of the latter has testable 'success criteria' to be used where requirements and 
conformance  testing  are  necessary  such  as  in  design  specification,  regulation,  and 
contractual  agreements.  The  first  of  five  conformance  requirements  deals  with  the  defined 
three 'levels of conformance': A(lowest), AA, and AAA.95  

Example: in WCAG 2.0, for a content-related issue "colour contrast": 

Principle  1:  Perceivable  -  Information  and  user  interface  components  must  be 
presentable to users in ways they can perceive. 

Guideline  1.4  Distinguishable:  Make  it  easier  for  users  to  see  and  hear  content 
including separating foreground from background 

Guid  1.4.3  Contrast  (minimum)  The  visual presentation  of text and images of 
text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 <= success criterion Level AA  

Guid  1.4.6  Contrast  (enhanced)  The  visual  presentation  of  text  and  images  of 
text has a contrast ratio of at least 7:1 <= success criterion Level AAA  

An  international  or  European  standard  does  not  exist  yet  (although  the  latter  is  under 
development I M/376). WCAG 1.0 is referred to in older legislation in most Member States, 
while more recent legislation refers to WCAG 2.0. 

 E-accessibility practices and accompanying evolutions 

Realising  e-accessibility  is  a  matter  of  awareness  of  user  requirements,  moderate  technical 
and design capability, following specifications with the help of supporting tools and guidance, 
and monitoring.  

93 URL:http://www.w3.org/WAI/, 2010 
94 'user agent' includes Web browsers, media players, and assistive technologies 
95 W3C, "Understanding WCAG 2.0", http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/complete.html 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  2  shows  the  necessary  components.  WCAG  2.0  is  the  reference  for  content.  Web 
design  tools  and  web  browsers  continue  to  improve  in  adhering  to  their  own  set  of 
requirements, corresponding respectively to the ATAG and UAAG specifications of W3C.  

Figure 2 Web-accessibility components (source: W3C) 

In addition, a reference body of best practices is building up. Practical assistance is provided 
to  public  administrations  in  Europe  through  the  collaborative  effort  in  the  CIP-funded 
network project eAccess+. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex V : Overview of figures and data sources  

The following key data items and calculated figures are mentioned in this report. 

Item 

Values 

Calculation 

Sources 

SMART 2009/0072 

Disability is self-declared. 
At European level 
(Eurostat) disability is not 
measured as a 
characteristic of internet 
users/non-users. 

UK: Oxford Internet 
Survey 2009. 

USA: Pew Internet 
Surveys 

Population to benefit 
from web-accessibility  

Internet use by people 
with disabilities  

With regard to people 
with disability: 84 
million, of which 34 
million are 65+ 

UK: 41% of disabled 
people use the internet 
against 75% of the non-
disabled population 
(2009);  

USA: 54% of disabled 
people use the internet 
against 81% of the non-
disabled population 
(2011); 28% of disabled 
non-users state that their 
disability makes it 
difficult or impossible to 
use the internet (2003). 

% accessible public sector 
websites, WCAG 2.0 AA, 
WCAG 1.0 AA 

% accessible private 
sector websites, WCAG 
2.0 

Price differences due to 
national variations in 
web-accessibility for 
suppliers 

Time savings of citizens 
when using public 
services online (€ value) 

Savings to customers 
when enabled by web-
accessibility to shop 
online  

Savings from finding 
lower prices in the 
internal market 

0% (strict test), 27% 
(composite indicator) 

Results depending on 
measurement approach 

SMART 2009/0066 
(MEAC-2) 

0% (strict test) 

Results depending on 
measurement approach 

SMART 2009/0066 
(MEAC-2) 

5-20% of bidding price 

Based on small number of 
cases studies. 

SMART 2009/0072 

30 M€ for every 1% of 
people with disabilities 

Model calculation, 
assuming 69 minutes 
saved per online contact, 
valued at minimum wages 
(only 65+ population), 1 
contact p.a. 

Study "Accessibility of 
ICT products and services 
to Disabled and Older 
People" 

300 M€ for every 1% 
increase in online 
shopping by the people 
with disabilities 
(nationally) 

Model calculation based 
on observed savings from 
online shopping and 
timesaving (e.g. reduced 
costs in UK are €358 p.a.) 

Study "Accessibility of 
ICT products and services 
to Disabled and Older 
People" 

5% additional savings 

EC consumer surveys 

Productivity increase 

1.04 B€ for every 1% of  Model calculation based 

SMART 2009/0072 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
on bridging the 10 points 
wage gap between 
disabled and non-disabled 
employees, controlling 
for factors such as 
education level, and 
assuming that 
productivity increase is 
translated into higher 
wages. 

At minimum wages; 
ceteris paribus e.g. 
assuming that there are no 
crowding-out effects. 
Also assuming that all in 
the group of working age 
disabled persons are 
reached with a web-
accessibility measure. 

Study "Accessibility of 
ICT products and services 
to Disabled and Older 
People"; EC extrapolation 
from selected countries 

SMART 2009/0072 

SMART 2009/0072 

Based on (low) estimate 
of €18 saving per 
transaction. 

A Business Case Tool is 
provided by SMART 
2009/0072. 

Study "Accessibility of 
ICT products and services 
to Disabled and Older 
People"; EC extrapolation 
from selected countries 

SMART 2009/0072 

thanks to web-
accessibility 

Labour participation 
increase 

Quality of life from 
increased labour 
participation 

Government transaction 
cost savings 

Additional costs of 
WCAG 2.0 web-
accessibility 

the population of people 
with disabilities (though 
the impact should not be 
fully allocated to web-
accessibility of public 
sector websites/basic 
services) 

Example: for every 1% 
increase in labour 
participation, in the UK 
150 M€ increase in wages 
and 30 M€ increase in tax 
revenues. A crude 
extrapolation to EU-27 
population gives about 2 
B€ as value of increase of 
wages (but country 
differences are huge so 
the range from selected 
countries on this 
extrapolation is from 400 
M€ to 5 B€).  

Similar results, 1.4 B€, 
are obtained by the 0072 
study (scenario 1).  

75 M€ p.a. for every 1% 
of increased labour 
participation in the group 
of working age disabled 
persons  

30 M€ for every 1% of 
the population of people 
with disabilities switching 
one transaction per year 
from offline to online use 

-8% compared to WCAG 
1.0 or UNE (Spanish 
standard); there is a thus 
net cost saving 

Additional costs for web-
accessibility vary with 
choices for certification 
and assessment, size of 
website etc 

Case studies indicate that 
additional costs are small 
once a website is 
accessible, except for 
about 5 k€ p.a. for 
external assessment and 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
certification (per 
website). 

Net costs-benefits of 
accessible online public 
services 

600 M€ for 10% reach by 
people with disabilities 

Countries with legislation  List of countries 

National deadlines for 
WCAG 2.0 
implementation 

2011..2015 (of 13 
countries surveyed only 6 
have a deadline) 

Table 21 Overview of figures and data sources 

Study "Accessibility of 
ICT products and services 
to Disabled and Older 
People"  

SMART 2009/0066 

SMART 2009/0072 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex VI: Calculations and methodology  

Number of websites and number and proportion of public sector websites 

The number of websites calculation is based on the data provided by Czech Republic relevant 
administration and compared by empirical evidence from Netherlands and France. The total 
number  of  websites  in  the  Czech  Republic  is  700.000.  They  include  public  sector  websites, 
businesses  websites,  NGO  and  other  organisations  websites,  limited  time  "project  of  event 
type websites as well as private individual or 'household' websites.  

As there is a legal obligation to set up a website for every business registered in the Czech 
Republic,  we  could  assume  that  there  is  roughly  one  website  per  business.  The  number  of 
businesses websites is 350.000 (assuming that about 10% of total 400000 businesses do not 
comply with the obligation to have a website).  

The sum of central and local government (the general government) websites is 7.500 public 
libraries are 2.400 websites and schools 4.200 websites. So we can estimate that public sector 
websites are at least 2% of the total number of websites or 3.9% of business websites (since 
we  are  not  counting  websites  of  other  public  institutions  such  as  museums,  publicly  funded 
project websites etc).  

Empirical evidence from France indicated a higher number of public sector websites (6%) and 
from  Netherlands  where  public  administration  only  websites  (subset  of  all  public  sector 
websites) were estimated to 1%. 

For  consistency  purposes  we  note  that  at  the  EU27  level  there  were  some  19.040.000 
companies (source: Eurostat) in 2010 which would imply that there could be around the same 
number  of  websites  run  by  private  sector.  These  aggregate  figures  are  further  decomposed 
based  on  the  size  of  the  population  to  different  Member  States  with  the  lowest  number  of 
public websites in Malta (638) and the highest in Germany (125.941).  

The calculation of costs associated with web-accessibility  

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  minimum  and 
maximum costs is associated to each of the different policy options from chapter 4. Finally, an 
estimation  is  provided  as  to  the  administrative  costs  implied  by  implementing  the  proposed 
legislation.  

In  the  implementation  of  web-accessibility  compliant  with  criteria  such  as  those  of  WCAG 
2.0, compliance and administrative costs depend on: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

the number of websites;  

the number of different "templates" (navigation structure, page layout, etc.) used for 
pages per website; 

the  nature  and  complexity  of  the  contents  (information  content,  interactive 
applications, downloadable material); 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

whether the website development, maintenance, and evaluations are supposed to be 
commissioned to external web-developers96 or carried out internally; 

whether most of the 'basic public services' are already offered on the Web, implying 
that costs for the provision of those are being made anyway; 

whether  most  websites  are  updated  regularly,  implying  that  costs  for  refurbishing 
already existing websites, are being made anyway.  

The  range  of  possible  compliance-  and  administrative  costs  are  calculated  against  the 
backdrop of the baseline scenario (“no extra action taken”). This results in that - over time - 
only Member States that have not already put Web-accessibility-related legislations and other 
measures  in  place  would  be  confronted  with  new  costs.  For  all  other  Member  States  the 
compliance  and  administrative  costs  would  be  neutral  (in  case  of  countries  with  existing 
legislation  referring  to  WCAG  2.0  specifications)  or  even  positive  (in  case  of  countries 
referring to often more complex to implement WCAG 1.0 specifications). 

Indeed, according to a recent report,97 the costs of complying with the standard WCAG  2.0 
are  8%  cheaper  than  with  WCAG  1.0.  This  is  partially  the  result  of  progress  in  increased 
accessibility  features  in  content  and  in  user  interfaces  which  help  avoiding  the  need  to 
duplicate content in separate formats (e.g. as it was previously the case for PDF documents or 
javascript).  

For  Member  States  with  pre-existing  web-accessibility  measures,  the  additional  costs  of 
complying with a proposed EU legally binding measure on web-accessibility will be minimal 
as they will materialise only for those sites that do not possibly fall under the scope of existing 
national  regulation  or  whose  applied  technical  requirements  are  less  demanding  than  the 
harmonised specification. 

For Member States without pre-existing relevant measures for web-accessibility, compliance 
costs  will  relate  to  making  'websites  concerned'  accessible,  ensuring  annual  evaluation  of 
websites, guaranteeing necessary skilled human resources.  

For  all  Member  States  minimal  additional  costs  could  result  from  the  necessary  reporting 
schemes  to  allow  for  common  monitoring  of  implementation  and  from  Information 
Obligations.98 

The average price of building an accessible website varies in time and depends on the current 
state of implementation in each of the Member States. Empirical research has shown that the 
number of "templates" (see above) influences the final price of the accessibility of a website 
together  with  other  factors,  such  as  the  number  of  pages  and  the  type  of  content  (e.g.  the 
number of images, forms and PDF's) and the nature of the processes the website is supposed 
to carry out (informative, interactive or transactional).  

In  addition  there  is  a  cost  to  maintain/assess the  website  accessibility  over  the  years,  which 
are  independent  from  the  initial  design  of  an  accessible  website.  For  example,  adding  an 

96 This is a simplification assumption; it is probably less valid for content maintenance, where public authority 

staff often updating content themselves via a CMS 

97 Technosite, "Economic Assessment for Improving e-Accessibility Services and Products" (SMART 

2009/0072). 

98 Types of Information Obligation are, for example, 'Submission of recurring reports' (e.g. with results of annual 

assessments) and 'Collaborations'. More details and estimations are given in Section 7.6. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
image in an accessible format a year after the website has been built, will add 0.04 working 
day  to  the  equation.  Monitoring  cost  (certification)  is  another  cost  as  well  as  Information 
obligation cost (referred to as administrative burden and presented in Annex VII). 

Training costs for web personnel within the public administrations are not considered in the 
following  model,  as  they  can  vary  considerably  (some  websites  will  be  maintained  by 
employees  who  already  have  the  knowledge  while  others  will  need  a  one-to-three  day 
training). Besides some of the tasks might result being contracted out. Administrative costs of 
procurements and handling accessibility in them is not discussed here either. 
According  to  a  recent  study99,  the  average  price  charged  for  the  design  (excluding  data 
content) of a website according to accessibility criteria is €5.232 with seve n and €9.737 with 
fifteen templates. These two price profiles correspond to the following two estimate's, which 
also  were  the  basis  for  the  calculation  of  the  markets  for  web-development  and  web-
accessibility in section 2.2. 

The  sensitivity  analysis  in  this  section  is  based  on  two  estimates,  each  associated  with 
different number of required pages and templates. The low estimate is based on the cost of 
web-accessibility  for  programming  and  designing  a  simple  website  with  100  pages,  7 
templates,  50  images  and  5  simple  forms,  done  by  an  external  consultancy  firm.  The  high 
estimate  is  based  on  the  cost  of  web-accessibility  for  programming  and  designing  a  more 
complex website with 300 pages, 15 templates, 50 images and 5 simple forms, also done by 
an external consultancy firm.  

The price of web-accessibility for a simple website would be € 713 on average and € 1701 
for a more complex one. This does not take into account the cost of website elements that are 
used for (e.g. financial) transactions, possible PDFs documents and multimedia content.  

Cost of website build up  
Costs of web-accessibility only 

Low estimate 
5.232
713

High estimate 

9.737 
1.701 

Table 22 Calculation of website build up and web-accessibility per website 

The costs of website built up as well as the costs of web-accessibility are based on a recent 
study taking into account the daily fees in the Member States.100 Cost of website build up is 
calculated as the difference of the previous two figures.  

Empirical research  has shown  that  the number  of templates influences the final price of  the 
accessibility  of  a  website  together  with  other  factors,  such  as  for  example  the  number  of 
pages, the nature of the processes and the types of text. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis that 
follows in this section is based on two scenarios. EU27 average wages are taken as a basis for 
both scenarios. Then first scenario, referred to as low scenario, has 100 pages, 7 templates, 50 
images and 5 forms. The second, high scenario, has 300 pages, 15 templates, 50 images and 5 
forms. Furthermore it is assumed that the web-accessibility work is carried out by an external 
consultant.  Note  that  web-accessibility  services  are  themselves  examples  of  cross-border 
online services and lend themselves well to be delivered over the internet, provided language 
is not a barrier, thus creating job opportunities also in low-wage EU countries.  

99 SMART 2009/0072: Public consultation - "Economic Assessment for Improving e-Accessibility Services and 

Products". See http://www.eaccessibility-impacts.eu/. 

100 SMART 2009-0072 D7 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Costs of website maintenance and updates  

Regarding  the  number  of  websites,  it  is  assumed,  in  the  model  used,  to  correlate  with  the 
population  size.  This  model  has  of  course  some  limitations  as  the  degree  of  distribution  of 
public  authorities  greatly  varies  (in  particular  at  local  level;  see  for  example  France  and  its 
very  large  number  of  municipalities).  Nevertheless,  the  model  can  in  general  be  considered 
adequate. 

Calculating the overall price of the implementation of web-accessibility is based on the costs 
described  in  Table  23.  The  'daily'  fees  are  the  average  cost  of  personnel  per  day,  as  in  the 
respective Member State.  

Web accessibility for public sector to catch up to 100% coverage 

299.000.000 

713.000.000

Web accessibility for 12 services  to catch up to 100% coverage 

149.000.000 

356.000.000

Low scenario  High scenario 

Maintenance for public sector for the one year 

Maintenance  for 12 services  for the one year 

Monitoring  for the one year 

Administrative burden for the one year 

Total cost of transition for public sector 

Total cost of transition for the 12 services 

218.000.000 

396.000.000

109.000.000 

198.000.000

700.000 

700.000

1.400.000 

1.400.000

519.000.000  1.111.000.000

260.000.000 

557.000.000

Table 23 Implementation costs for the transition from the present situation to 100% coverage of web-accessibility 

There are three types of Member States, when it comes to the accounting of costs. First there 
are  those  that  have  already  implemented  the  WCAG  2.0  specifications  and  oblige  public  e-
services to be accessible. For them there would be no costs over time as a result of the WCA 
intervention.Then  there  are  6  Member  States  that  do  not  yet  have  legislation  on  web-
accessibility. For them there would be costs associated with introducing criteria like WCAG 
2.0 AA in their legislation and implementing them on the related websites. Finally there are 
Member  States  that  have  already  introduced  WCAG  1.0  AA.  For  them  the  introduction  of 
WCAG 2.0 AA in their legislation is assumed to add substantial costs to the implementation. 
The development of accessible website according to WCAG 2.0 on the contrary is estimated 
to cost 8% less than development of website accessible according to WCAG 1.0. 

Web-accessibility 
Monitoring 
Administrative burden 
Total cost 

Low estimate 

High estimate 

314.453.384
686.517
1.355.536
314.453.384

750.689.293 
686.517 
1.355.536 
750.689.293 

Table 24 Total costs for EU 27 governments when implementing the basic public services  

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex VII : Benefits of increased web-accessibility 

Benefits  depend  on  the  degree  of  web-accessibility  actually  achieved  and  on  the  take-up  of 
the Internet amongst the target group.  

1 - Increased economic and social participation of citizens 

Increased web-accessibility would likely lead to more possibilities for participation in social 
and  economic  life,  leading  to  increased  quality  of  life.  This  can  be  due  to  increased  labour 
participation but also to increased social interaction. For example, the use of broadband has 
been  shown  to  lead  to  a  20%  reduction  of  depression  rates  amongst  elderly  (less  social 
isolation).  It  is  hard  to  quantify  such  quality  of  life  improvement,  but  case  studies  provide 
anecdotal evidence.  

Studies  and  modelling  assume  that  web-accessibility  would  lead  to  increased  employment 
participation of people with disabilities and older persons, more income from increased labour 
productivity,  and  less  time  lost  by  citizens  when  using  public  services.  If  private  sector 
websites  also  become  more  accessible,  access  to  more  competitive  offers  and  consequently 
lower prices will result for consumers.  

Total benefits for citizens in monetary terms can be calculated as follows: 

A.  value of additional income: at least 400 M€  for every 1% increase in labour participation 
at minimum wages in the public sector. This will have to be combined with the expected 
increased participation of persons with disabilities and the general increased employment 
rate targeted in EU 2020.  

B.  value of time savings: € 30 million for every 1% increase in take-up of online access 

C.  value of savings in online shopping (basic services): 300 M€ for every 10% increase in 
online shopping, assuming basic services compose 10% of the consumer basket 

As regards savings of time and money (items B and C): The DAE target is to increase regular 
internet  use  for  disadvantaged  persons  from  41%  to  60%  (from  2009  to  2015).  Over  the 
period  2012-2015  (the  period  of  actual  measure-implementation)  a  similar  increase  in  the 
order  of  10%  could  be  expected  for  people  with  disabilities.  In  total  the  citizens  benefits 
would then be at least € 500 million.  
The  Table  25101  shows  the  potential  benefits  of  employment  to  society  and  public  purse, 
calculated on the basis of an increase of 1% in employment rate of people with disabilities in 
selected EU countries. 

Employment benefits 

Minimum Wage 

Average Wage 

Austria 

Belgium 

Czech Republic 

Finland 

  Societal 

Public Purse 

 Societal 

Public Purse 

6,533,832 

2,502,458 

61,612,575 

23, 597, 616 

46,770,130 

N/A 

173,764,791 

N/A 

17,117,697 

2,567,655 

62,040,790 

9,306,118 

11,012,688 

936,078 

52,286,508 

4,444,353 

101 Source: Study "Accessibility of ICT products and services to Disabled and Older People". 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Sweden 

360,058,465 

N/A 

1,313,281,837 

N/A 

279,344,533 

2,567,655 

847,101,561 

9,306,118 

39,321,414 

7,864,283 

98,582,816 

19,716,563 

4,895,881 

930,217 

16,621,047 

3,157,999 

165,804,325 

95,085,031 

N/A 

N/A 

574,666,859 

211,329,274 

N/A 

N/A 

United Kingdom 

148,229,315 

29,645,863 

1,040,781,849 

208,156,370 

Table 25 Employment benefits of web-accessibility  

2 - Reducing governments’ costs and improving their reputation 

Public administrations save money when citizens use public services online (transaction costs 
are  significantly  lower).  Unemployment  and  disability  benefits  will  be  reduced  when  more 
disabled  citizens  find  a  job  or  become  more  independent  using  the  internet.  With  the  same 
assumptions  as  above,  in  particular  a  10%  increase  of  Internet  usage  among  people  with 
disabilities thanks to web-accessibility, the government benefits are: 

D.  government transaction cost savings: 316 M€ p.a. 

E.  unemployment and disability benefit savings: assumed to be 70% of item A, i.e. 224 M€. 

F.  increased tax revenues from employment: can be taken to be 20% of item E, i.e. 45 M€. 

Total government benefits can thus be estimated at up to about 600 M€ p.a.  

3 - Market increase and cost reduction for enterprises (website owners) providing basic 
services 

The  various  case  studies  suggest  that  web-accessibility  increases  markets  (cf.  Tesco, 
General&Ledger) and reduces costs such as helpdesk support. Costs reductions on helpdesk 
support of 20% have been reported.  

4 - Increasing the market for web-developers 

Web service providers benefit from both the growing expenditures of governments on web-
accessibility and the opening up of the internal market for web-accessibility services. Benefits 
are: 

G.  market  growth  for  web-accessibility  services:  estimated  to  be  in  the  public  sector  in  the 
order of several hundred M€ (for assessment a nd certification services). To be added the 
value of the market of web-accessibility for basic services websites. 

5 - Benefits of harmonised specifications 

Harmonised specifications (and common approaches to measurement, training, reporting etc) 
will  reduce  website  costs  for  public  administrations,  open  up  the  digital  single  market  for 
citizens and open up the internal market for web-accessibility services. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
5.1 - Reduced costs for governments 

H.  for those that implement WCAG 1.0 today, a reduction of costs for website maintenance 

when switching to WCAG 2.0 of 8%.  

5.2 - Barrier-free digital single market  

For citizens 

I.  value  of  comparative  shopping  in  the  internal  market:  5%  of  item  C  (based  on  average 

savings found in consumer surveys), i.e. 15 M€.  

For web-developers (the suppliers)  

J.  value of internal market for web-accessibility services and tools: this is hard to estimate, 
but the web-adaptation and assessment and certification services can readily be supplied 
from  one  country  to  another  (as  evidenced  by  approach  of  the  SMART  2009/0072  and 
SMART  2009/0066  studies  and  the  approach  of  initiatives  such  as  Fix-the-Web).  A 
considerable part of item G will therefore constitute the internal market 

K.  cost-savings  for  operating  in  the  internal  market:  bidding  costs  can  be  saved  for  the 

suppliers of web-accessibility solutions.  

For public bodies (the buying parties) 

L.  Procurers  of  web-accessibility  solutions  can  have  considerable  savings  given  the  wage 
differences  in  Europe,  as  many  web-accessibility  services  can  be  provided  from  one 
country  to  another,  being  labour-based,  suitable  to  be  provided  at  a  distance  and 
electronically  and  requiring  mostly  general  country-independent  skills  (except  for 
language dependencies). 

5.3 - Costs of a harmonised approach 

Three types of costs for governments:  

1)  one-off  organisational  costs  to  ensure  procedures  are  in  place  to  handle  web-
accessibility, estimated at 100 k€ for an organi sational unit providing five public services. 

2) one-off costs per website to ensure that the website is made accessible (possibly carried 
over to website providers by requiring web-accessibility in public procurement) and related 
staff is trained. For estimates, see SMART 2009/0072102. 

3) annual costs to ensure web-accessibility is maintained; case studies claim that these are 
mainly assessment and certification costs, estimated at 5 k€ per website.  

In addition, there is the administrative burden (information obligation, EU level cooperation 
costs),  typically,  per  country  in  the  order  of  a  few  hundred  k€  per  year  (see  administrative 
burden estimate).  

102 Using Business Case Tool of study SMART 2008/0072  

EN 

75 

   EN 

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

The economies of scale due to the legislative action can be realized compared to the baseline 
(column  1  in  both  Table  26  and  Table  27)  in  two  stages  in  both  authoring  tools  and  web 
accessibility  markets  regarding  the  public  sector  websites.  We  assume  that  the  costs  of  the 
authoring tools purchased by the web developers are spread over the period of three years due 
to its investment nature. We are also assuming that the profit margins of the authoring tools 
for producers and the web developers represent an equal share of the final price (14%) at both 
stages.  The  scenarios  in  section  6  on  the  other  hand  are  assuming  that  all  benefits  of 
economies of scale would be received by them. Therefore, their margins might grow with up 
to  50%.  In  the  end,  the  size  of  the  margins  should  be  dependent  on  the  degree  of 
competitiveness of these two markets. 

The market of authoring tools is assuming five competitive producers. We are assuming also 
that there are 10 versions of the technical requirements varying across EU Member States, as 
they  are  not  harmonised.  They  face  fixed  costs  in  terms  of  the  production  of  the  SW  and 
variable  costs  depending  on  the  number  of  clients  and  the  number  of  versions  they  need  to 
design.  Their  costs  and  the  margin  sum  up  to  the  final  price  (column  1).  The  baseline  is 
assuming  33%  compliance  (column  2)  of  the  government  websites  in  the  EU  therefore  the 
market is not exploiting its full potential.  

During the first stage, as the harmonisation of the technical specifications will take place there 
will  be  no  need  to  design  ten  versions  of  the  SW  bringing  the  variable  costs  and  in  turn 
overall  costs  of  production  down  (column  3).  The  final  price  should  decrease  by  about  one 
third. This is under the assumption that the margins of the authoring tools producers stay the 
same in terms of its share of the price.  

During the second stage, as the number of clients of producers of authoring tools triples due to 
the attainment of 100% coverage level fixed costs per client will further decrease (column 5). 
This will bring the final price of the authoring tools to one third of the original price (column 
5 and 6). This is also assuming that the margins of the authoring tools producers stay the same 
in terms of its share of the price. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

clients/EUR  % 

clients /EUR  % 

clients /EUR % 

Web developer clients per SW developer 

707 

33 

707 

33 

2.141 

100

Production  costs  of  authoring  tools  per 
client 

5.717 

86 

3.595 

54 

1.856 

Price of the authoring tools per client 

6.667 

100  4.191 

63 

2.164 

28 

32 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 26 Authoring tools market 

The  market  of  web  accessibility  is  assuming  some  11  000103  competitors.  They  face  fixed 
costs  in  terms  of  the  purchase  of  the  authoring  tools  and  variable  costs  depending  on  the 
amount of labour needed for the web accessibility design.  

During the first stage, as the harmonisation of the technical specifications takes place bringing 
the  final  price  of  the  authoring  tools  down,  the  cost  of  the  web  developers  related  to  their 
purchases go down (column 3). This is reducing the price of the web accessibility by around 
17%.  

During the second stage, as the number of clients per web developer triples due to the 100% 
coverage,  bringing  the  fixed  costs  per  client  further  down  (column  5),  the  final  price  of  the 
web accessibility will go down to 59% of the original price (column 5 and 6).   

1

2

3

4 

5

6

units/EUR

% 

units/EUR 

% 

units/EUR 

% 

Websites per web developer 

Production costs of the WA per website 

23

611

33

86

Price of the WA per website 

713

100

590

83 

Table 27 Web accessibility market 

23

33 

71

100

506

71 

358

417

50

59

103 Number of enterprises J6312 - Web portals in 2010, Eurostat  

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
Annex IX : National surveillance: accessibility assessment procedure 

The evolving nature of website content requires that regular verification is carried out. 

Assessment  of  each  website  will  use  a  harmonized  assessment  method  associated  with  the 
harmonized  web-accessibility  functional  specifications  and  the  compliance  demonstration 
provided in the standards to be used for presumtion of conformty.  

The resulting data are to be reported and provided for public use.  

A  methodology  will  be  specified  for  precising  the  regular  verification  to  be  carried  out  at 
Member State level of all the websites concerns. One can imagine that it will be based on a 
sampling approach including services from each of the categories of websites concerned. 

For the costs simulation done in this Impact Assessment, a simple sampling scheme has been 
used: the sample in the same time including at least one site at NUTS 0 level (i.e. national or 
federal)  and  at  least  one  local  and  at  least  one  regional  for  each  of  the  NUTS  2  level 
regions.104 

The  websites  should  be  checked  on  yearly  basis  and  the  sample  collection  should  be 
significantly refreshed every year (and for example completely over a two year period).  

To  allow  later  analysis  of  the  sampled  data,  it  would  be  useful  that  the  modalities  of  the 
reporting the results of assessing each site follow the below characteristics : 

•  Reporting  granularity  at  the  level  of  each  harmonised  accessibility  functional 

specification criterion. 

•  Reporting – when appropriate – to be split between the three major categories of content: 
information pages, applications and downloadable material. Related technologies used to 
be indicated.  

• 

Indicating the categories of websites concerned covered by the site, as well as the root 
URL(s) of the site and the name of the entity responsible for the site.  

• 

Indicating of presence on the site of a visible and adequate accessibility statement. 

104 Depending on the Member States, the choice of NUTS 1 or NUTS3 level region might be more adequate 

EN 

78 

   EN