COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: advertising malpractice, after-sales service, comparative advertising, consumer information, consumer law, eco-label, environmental impact, producer's liability, product life, software

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.3.2022  SWD(2022) 86 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information        {COM(2022) 143 final} - {SEC(2022) 166 final} - {SWD(2022) 85 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet  

Impact Assessment on the initiative aimed at empowering consumers for the green transition   

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

This impact assessment shows that consumers: 

 

 

lack  reliable  information  about  the  sustainability  of  products  (environmental  characteristics,  lifespan, 
reparability)  

face  misleading  commercial  practices  (early  obsolescence  of  products,  greenwashing  by  organisations, 
lack of transparency and credibility of sustainability labels and digital information tools).  

These run counter to the objective of the European Green Deal, which is to engineer a switch to a more 
environmentally sustainable economy and society – a ‘green transition’.  

These problems disadvantage: 

  consumers,  by  leading  them  to  make  sub-optimal  choices,  reducing  their  trust  in  the  environmental 
information currently available and preventing them from actively contributing to the green transition.  
  companies that offer truly sustainable products, compared to those that do not. And some companies also 
risk  unnecessarily  high  compliance  costs  as  EU  countries  start to  introduce  different  national  solutions to 
the problems identified above.  

Finally, the impacts of non-sustainable consumption choices on the environment are not currently being adequately 
addressed. The assessment identifies two main drivers:  

1.  a  market  failure,  due  to  insufficient  economic  incentives  for  companies  to  provide  information  on  the 

2. 

sustainability of products or to put an end to the practices identified   
insufficiently  adapted  EU  rules,  making  it  difficult  for  national  authorities  to  effectively  address  the 
problems they identify.    

What should be achieved? 

The initiative aims: 

1.  to ensure the smooth functioning of the EU’s single market, for the benefit of both consumers and traders  
2.  to promote the role of consumption in achieving the EU’s climate goals and protecting the environment.  

On the demand side, the initiative should reduce consumer disadvantage, increase consumer trust and empower 
consumers to play an active part in the green transition. On the supply side, it aims to ensure a level-playing field 
and legal certainty for companies.  

The specific objectives are to:  

1.  enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions (promoting sustainable consumption), 
2.  eliminate practices that mislead consumers away from sustainable consumption choices  
3.  ensure a better and more consistent application of the EU rules.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

Consumer protection falls within the joint remit (‘shared competence’) of EU governments and the EU, so the EU 
has the powers to act if needed.  

The initiative aims to address problems which are widespread and have the same causes across the EU. As EU 

1 

 
 
countries are unilaterally developing specific legislation to address the problems, EU-wide action through this 
initiative would reduce legal fragmentation in the single market and the consequences in terms of barriers to cross-
border trade and uneven levels of consumer protection.  

Finally, climate change and environmental degradation do not stop at national borders: unsustainable consumption 
in one country can affect other countries. So combined action at EU level could tackle this more effectively for the 
EU as a whole.    

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, why? 

The assessment identifies a number of preferred policy options  that would ensure this initiative is consistent with 
other initiatives currently in preparation (the ‘Green Claims’ initiative and the ‘Sustainable Products’ initiative).  
The following  preferred  options are  self-standing  and  in  several instances  provide  for  general rules that  the  other 
two initiatives will usefully complement: 

1.  Providing information on the existence (or absence) of a producer’s commercial guarantee of durability and 

the period of time during which free software updates are provided; 

2.  Providing a reparability score, or other relevant repair information, where applicable/available; 
3.  Banning certain practices associated with early obsolescence  
4.  Providing rules to ensure the fairness of environmental claims, including via banning certain greenwashing 

practices,  

5.  Providing  rules  to  ensure  the  transparency  and  credibility  of  sustainability  labels  and  sustainability 

information tools. 

How?  

–  Options  1 and 2  will  be achieved  via targeted amendments  of the  Consumer  Rights  Directive (Directive 

2011/83/EU).  

–  Options 3, 4 and 5 will be achieved via targeted amendments of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

(Directive 2005/29/EC) 

Which products? 

–  For  Option  1,  for  all  goods,  except  for  software  updates  which  are  only  relevant  for  certain  goods. 
Furthermore,  it  was  decided  that  traders  should  provide  information  on  the  absence  of  a  producer’s 
guarantee of durability for energy-using goods only. .  

–  For Option 2, no product scope was defined (the measure will apply wherever the information in question is 

required to be made available under applicable law).  

–  Similarly,  for  Options  3,  4  and  5,  no  product  scope  was  defined,  as  these  measures  will  apply  to  certain 

commercial practices, regardless of the product in question. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

Consumer associations are generally supportive of the preferred policy options. In the case of options 1, 3 and 4, 
they would prefer more ambitious measures than those proposed.  

Business associations see selected options 1 and 4 as effective but also point to the moderate costs they would 
generate. There is some resistance from them on option 3, due to the perceived high costs. However, they are the 
stakeholder group most likely to consider option 5 as effective.  

National authorities generally support the various selected options, but particularly options 3, 4 and 5, as these 
would facilitate their enforcement work. 

2 

 
 
C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred options?                                     

Consumers – overall they would benefit quite considerably.  

They would be able to make better decisions thanks to the: 

–  better availability and reliability of information at the point of sale describing the existence and length of a 
producer’s commercial guarantee of durability and the period of timing during which free software updates 
are provided  

–  availability of a reparability score or other relevant repair information.  

–  action to tackle greenwashing, early obsolescence and the use of sustainability labels and digital information 

tools that are not transparent or credible.  

Their rights would also be protected better: 

– 

– 

they would be able to see more easily which products have an extended producer’s commercial guarantee of 
durability and choose this if it meets their needs.  

they  would  be  misled  less  by  spurious  environmental  claims  and  unreliable/intransparent  sustainability 
labels and digital information tools.  

–  products they buy would not fail earlier than the consumer expects. 

Environment  

Consumers would be more likely to choose products that are sustainable (produced with lower environmental 
impact, expected to last longer and be repaired more often than they are now).  

Business  

There would be fewer potential barriers to cross-border trade caused by unilateral measures put in place by 
individual EU countries. Options 3, 4 and 5 in particular would lead to a level-playing field as they aim to eliminate 
unfair practices used by some market operators.  

What are the costs of the preferred options?                                    

Additional costs for businesses will come from providing information on commercial guarantees of durability, free 
software update periods and repairs.  

These should however be limited and – even though likely to be passed on to consumers  – are not expected to 
impact demand negatively, especially as consumers will be much keener to pay for products that last longer or are 
easier to repair.  

Addressing greenwashing and early obsolescence will also lead to further costs, but mainly for those companies 
who currently engage in these practices. Those that do not will actually benefit from the level-playing field, as 
practices will be cleaned up in this respect.  

Providing rules to ensure the transparency and credibility of sustainability labels and sustainability information tools 
will lead to increased costs for the organisations running them. These are likely to be passed on to the businesses 
who apply for such labels, but they may also decide to apply for fewer labels in the future.  

National authorities will incur costs linked to enforcing the new obligations. However, some have pointed out that 
clearer rules on greenwashing and early obsolescence may actually lead to savings for them, given the difficulties 
and resources required to enforce the current rules.  

3 

 
 
Note also that combining the various options should generate certain economies of scale as regards enforcement 
costs and costs for businesses (e.g. costs for familiarisation with the new measures and internal inspections). 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

In line with the existing EU consumer law, no exemptions are provided for small, medium or micro enterprises, as 
this would be contrary to the general purpose of consumer protection rules. It would also be contrary to the interests 
of SMEs, as consumers would have a lower level of protection and thus less trust when buying from them.  

SMEs would therefore incur the costs mentioned above. However, they would also benefit from fairer practices on 
the market, leading to a level playing field, as well as reduced barriers to cross-border trade, avoiding a potential 
patchwork of different legislation across the EU as different countries apply different solutions.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

National administrations will incur additional costs linked to enforcing the new rules, although options 4 and 5 
could actually lead to savings, and certain economies of scales exist in combining the selected options.  

The selected options also rely on the improvements created by recent legislative changes on enforcement.   

Will there be other significant impacts?  

No other significant impacts have been identified, including on countries outside the EU.  

The options have also been assessed for their consistency with other legislation and related initiatives in preparation 
and this aspect has been taken carefully into account when selecting the preferred options. All selected options have 
been designed to complement existing legislation and facilitate enforcement.  

Proportionality?  

As indicated above, we have identified a number of preferred policy options ensuring this initiative is consistent 
with the green claims and sustainable products initiatives that are currently in preparation.  

The options selected are considered proportionate in light of the current consumer detriment, the expected gains in 
consumer welfare, the costs to be incurred by businesses and administrations, and the expected positive impacts on 
society through the reduction in CO2 emissions and other environmental impacts.  

Options generating very high costs for business have either not been selected or were discarded at an early stage.   

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

In addition to regular monitoring, we are proposing to report on how well the initiative is working 3 years after 
being implemented. 

4