COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 85 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  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) 86 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................................. 1 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ...................................................................................................... 6 

2.1.  Problem 1: Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices ...................... 6 
2.2.  Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products ................................................................. 8 
2.3.  What are the problem drivers? ............................................................ 13 
2.4.  How will the problems evolve without intervention? ......................... 15 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .......................................................................................... 17 

3.1.  Legal basis ........................................................................................... 17 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ................................................... 17 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .............................................. 18 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................. 19 

4.1.  General objectives ............................................................................... 19 
4.2.  Specific objectives ............................................................................... 19 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ...................................................... 19 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ...................... 19 
5.2.  Description of the policy options ........................................................ 22 

6.  WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  POLICY  OPTIONS  AND  HOW  DO  THEY 
COMPARE?.......................................................................................................................... 34 

6.1.  Problem 1: Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices .................... 35 
6.2.  Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products ............................................................... 43 

7. 

PREFERRED POLICY OPTIONS ....................................................................................... 50 

8.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................... 55 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................................. 56 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references ....................................... 56 
Organisation and timing ...................................................................... 56 
Consultation of the RSB ...................................................................... 56 
Evidence, sources and quality ............................................................. 58 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ......................................................................... 60 

Introduction and overview of the consultation strategy ...................... 60 
1. 
Consultation activities and tools .......................................................... 60 
2. 
Evidence, sources and quality ............................................................. 61 
3. 
4.  Main stakeholder feedback per consultation activity .......................... 62 
Feeding the consultation results into the Impact Assessment ............. 65 
5. 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ............................................................................ 74 

1. 

Practical implications of the initiative ................................................. 74 

 
 
2. 

Summary of costs and benefits ............................................................ 76 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................................................................... 80 

1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 

Selection  of  criteria  and  sub-criteria  for  assessing  the  impacts  of  the 
policy options ...................................................................................... 80 
General approach to assess the various impacts .................................. 92 
Socio-economic impacts ...................................................................... 92 
Approach to monetisation of costs and benefits .................................. 98 

ANNEX 5: ADDITIONAL DATA AND EXPLANATION OF ESTIMATES OF CONSUMERS 
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................................. 133 

1. 

2. 

Problem 1: Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices .................. 133 
Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products ............................................................. 139 

ANNEX  6:  OVERVIEW  OF  RELEVANT  EXISTING  AND  UPCOMING  NATIONAL 
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 143 

ANNEX  7:  OVERVIEW  OF  EU  LEGISLATION  RELEVANT  FOR  THE  PROBLEMS  THE 
INITIATIVE AIMS TO ADDRESS ................................................................................... 149 

ANNEX 8: IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS – DETAILED ASSESSMENT ................ 165 

1. 

2. 

Problem 1: Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices .................. 165 
Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products ............................................................. 183 

ANNEX 9: DETAILED RESULTS FROM THE COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND FROM 
THE MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 201 

1. 
2. 

General approach to compare the various option/options ................. 201 
Presentation of the results per sub-problems ..................................... 204 

ANNEX 10: MONITORING INDICATORS .............................................................................. 239 

ANNEX 11: OPTIONS DISCARDED AT AN EARLY STAGE ................................................ 242 

1. 

2. 

Problem 1: Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices .................. 242 
Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products ............................................................. 245 

ANNEX  12:  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  PROBLEMS  FOR  CONSUMERS,  THE  MARKET 
AND THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 247 

1. 
2. 

Consequences of Problem 1 .............................................................. 247 
Consequences of Problem 2 .............................................................. 250 

ANNEX 

13: 

PROVIDING 
PRODUCT 
DURABILITY/REPARABILITY INFORMATION .......................................................... 253 

ANALYSIS 

SCOPE 

FOR 

OF 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

CEAP 

CRD 

DCD 

CBA 

CPC 

LCA 

MCA 

OEF 

OEFSR 

OPC 

PEF 

PEFCR 

SGD 

SPI 

UCPD 

Circular Economy Action Plan 

Consumer Rights Directive 

Digital Content Directive 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Consumer Protection Cooperation 

Life-Cycle Assessment 

Multi-criteria analysis 

Organisation Environmental Footprint 

Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules 

Online Public Consultation 

Product Environmental Footprint  

Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules 

Sale of Goods Directive 

Sustainable Product Initiative 

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

The European Green Deal1 sets out a comprehensive strategy to transform the EU into a fair 
and  prosperous  society,  with  a  climate-neutral,  resource-efficient,  clean  and  circular 
economy  in  which  economic  growth  is  decoupled  from  resource  use  and  where  negative 
impacts on natural capital and biodiversity are reduced. To deliver the European Green 
Deal,  there  is  a  need  to  rethink  a  number  of  EU  policies  and  among  them  also 
production and consumption. The aim of reforms is to encourage the needed changes both 
in  consumer  and  business  behaviour.  To  achieve  this  two-fold  objective,  the  Circular 
Economy Action Plan (CEAP)2 and the New Consumer Agenda3 set out several mutually 
reinforcing and complementary actions. A number of initiatives are being taken already with 
the aim to ensure that products, both goods and services, sold to EU consumers are fit for 
the above objectives.  

Given that the current consumption of products is recognised to represent an unsustainable 
burden  on  the  environment4,  this  Impact  Assessment  (IA)  presents  policy  actions  to 
facilitate  the  needed  changes  in  consumer  behaviour  to  achieve  climate  and  circularity 
objectives under the European Green Deal. As the initiative aims to deliver on the European 
Green Deal, and thus to  reduce the burden of consumption on the environment, it covers 
primarily environmental sustainability. However, as per its mandate, the initiative aims to 
tackle  social  and  ethical  aspects  of  sustainability  where  relevant,  i.e.  in  relation  to 
sustainability labels and digital sustainability information tools. This is due to the fact that 
labels  and  tools  already  widely  present  on  the  market  often  cover  other  aspects  of 
sustainability, and thus fall within the problem definition identified by this initiative. 

Data from a 2009 Eurobarometer show that 83% of EU-27 citizens considered a product’s 
impact  on  the  environment  an  important  element  when  deciding  which  products  to 
buy5. Moreover, many European citizens believe that “changing the way we consume” is the 
most effective way to tackle environmental problems6. The COVID-19 crisis does not seem 
to have dampened the public’s awareness of this need to address climate change, nor their 
willingness to do so. Studies even suggest that the crisis has re-intensified citizens’ support 
for  tackling  environmental  problems7.  When  asked  about  the  long-term  impact  of  the 
COVID-19 crisis, between 66% and 76% of consumers surveyed in 4 EU countries in May 
2020  said  they  “will  buy  products  that  are  better  for  the  environment,  even  if  they  cost 
more”8.  The  challenge  is  to  unlock  this  potential  through  policy  measures  that 
empower, support and enable European consumers to play an active role in the green 
transition.  
In  one  of  its  recent  resolutions9,  the  European  Parliament  has  called  on  the  European 
Commission  to  show  strong  political  ambition  when  designing  this  and  other  related 

1 COM(2019)640 final, 11 December 2019.  
2 COM(2020)98 final, 11 March 2020. 
3 COM(2020)696 final, 13 November 2020. 
4  Joint  Research  Centre,  Consumer  and  consumption  footprint:  The  assessment  of  the  environmental  impacts  of 

consumption in the European Union, 2019, p. 21. 

5 European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 256  - Europeans’ attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption 

and production, 2009. 

6 European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 501, 2020, p. 48. 
7  Dr.  Ulf  J.J.  Hahnel,  University  of  Geneva,  Mitigating  climate  change  during  and  after  COVID-19:  Challenges  and 

windows of opportunity, 2020 

8 France, Germany, Italy and Spain.  
IPSOS, Covid-19: attitudes and behaviours in the EU, 2020, not published.  
9 Towards a more sustainable Single Market for business and consumers (2020/2021(INI)) 

1 

 
                                                           
initiatives.    It  calls  specifically  to  develop  measures  on  the  provision  of  pre-contractual 
information  on  the  lifespan  and  reparability  of  products  as  well  as  measures  to  combat 
premature  obsolescence  or  greenwashing  among  other  aspects.  In  the  recent  Council 
Conclusions  on  the  New  Consumer  Agenda10,  Member  States  have  “welcomed  the 
Commission’s intention to propose measures in order to promote sustainable consumption 
by improving consumers’ right to accurate and effective information, and to better protect 
them against certain practices such as unsubstantiated green claims and greenwashing”. With 
such rules, the EU27 as one of the largest economies in the world11, can act as a standard-
setter for options to encourage sustainable consumption in other jurisdictions.   

Objective and scope of this initiative 

Within the area of environmental sustainability, this initiative focuses on those aspects of 
environmental  sustainability  which  can  be  most  appropriately  addressed  by  horizontal 
consumer  law.  As  foreseen  in  the  CEAP  and  the  New  Consumer  Agenda,  this  initiative 
tackles the identified problems via a revision of consumer law, setting general requirements 
that would complement more targeted rules contained in sectoral legislation, e.g. on specific 
products or product groups. It therefore focus on empowering consumers in their decision-
making process, and does not consider the use of  other non-consumer law instruments that 
may in addition provide  further solutions for better empowering consumers for the green 
transition, such as, for example, fiscal policy instruments or sectorial policy instruments. 

As per its mandate under CEAP, this consumer law initiative will tackle problems identified 
with the consumer’s decision-making process at the point of sale and business-to-consumer 
commercial  practices  (i.e.  any  act,  omission,  course  of  conduct  or  representation, 
commercial  communication  including  advertising  and  marketing,  by  a  trader,  directly 
connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to consumers). It will address the 
provision  of  reliable  consumer  information,  in  particular  the  fact  that  consumers  lack 
reliable information at the point of sale for choosing more environmentally sustainable 
products.  It  will  also  strive  to  better  protect  consumers  against  unfair  commercial 
practices, such as greenwashing, early obsolescence of consumer goods or non-transparent 
voluntary sustainability labels and digital information tools, which are not compatible with 
the green transition.  

Results from  a consumer survey carried out  to  support  this initiative show that  a lack of 
reliable  information  about  products’  environmental  sustainability,  reparability  and 
lifespan feature among the main obstacles preventing consumers from adopting more 
sustainable  consumption  behaviours.  According  to  recent  consultations12,  85%  of 
respondents  reported  being  unsatisfied  or  only  partially  satisfied  with  the  environmental 
information available to them, due (among other factors) to the fact that such information is 
generally not sufficient to support consumer decision-making. Another survey13 showed that 
82% of the participants agreed that it is difficult to find information on how long a product 
will last and on its reparability. In addition, 86% agreed that they would like to receive better 
information on how long a product will last and 83% agreed that they would like to receive 

10 Council of the EU, Council Conclusions on the New Consumer Agenda, 2021. 
11 Eurostat, news release: China, US and EU are the largest economies in the world, 2020, p. 1. 
12  European  Commission,  Sustainable  Products  in  a  Circular  Economy  -  Towards  an  EU  Product  Policy  Framework 

contributing to the Circular Economy, 2019, p. 66. 

13 European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, 2018, p. 82.  

2 

 
 
                                                           
better information on how easy it is to repair a product. These findings are also confirmed 
by the results of the Open Public Consultation carried out for this initiative14.  

Based  on  these  findings,  the  initiative  considers  the  provision  of  information  on  the 
environmental  characteristics  of  products,  addressing  in  particular  the  provision  of 
information about durability (“how long will a product last before it needs to be replaced 
or repaired?”, “will it break/become obsolete earlier than expected or than what has been 
communicated by the trader?”) and reparability (“can consumers know whether a product 
can easily be repaired?”). More durable and more reparable products can not only lead to 
savings  for  consumers  in  that  consumers  will  have  to  spend  less  money  on  replacement 
products,  but  can  also  bring  environmental  benefits,  in  that  less  pollution  and  waste  are 
emitted if products are repaired and/or last longer15. These two parameters are identified as 
highly relevant to help consumers assess a product’s environmental sustainability16, and are 
equally relevant from a consumer’s economic perspective17, 18. 

This  initiative  also  addresses  certain  misleading  commercial  practices  which  prevent 
consumers from making sustainable consumption choices. These practices include early (or 
premature) obsolescence. This occurs when a product fails prematurely or lasts for a shorter 
period  of  time  than  consumers  can  reasonably  expect19.  Another  misleading  commercial 
practice considered by this initiative is that of ‘greenwashing’, which occurs when a trader 
attempts to present an environmentally responsible public image in a way that is unfounded 
or  misleading.  This  often  takes  the  form  of  making  unclear  or  not  well-substantiated 
environmental claims20. This initiative addresses such practices as they relate to key aspects 
of  environmental  sustainability  and  can  under  certain  conditions  already  be  addressed 
under existing consumer law21. As per its mandate under CEAP, this initiative also seeks to 
improve the transparency and credibility of sustainability labels and digital information 
tools: in this respect, and only when it comes to the options aimed at addressing this problem, 
as mentioned above and further specified in Section 5, this initiative uses a broader concept 
of sustainability that also includes social and ethical aspects, given that sustainability labels 
available on the market also cover such a wider range of sustainability attributes22.  

14 See  Factual summary report – public consultation for New Consumer Agenda 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/factual-summary-report-public-consultation-new-consumer-agenda_en, p. 17-18. 
15 Several reports indicate that the durability and reparability of the products have beneficial impacts on the environment. 
S. Boldoczki, A. Thorenz, A. Tuma, The environmental impacts of preparation for reuse: A case study of WEEE reuse 
in Germany, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 252, 2020; and K. Laitala, et al., Increasing repair of household 
appliances,  mobile  phones  and  clothing:  Experiences  from  consumers  and  the  repair  industry,  Journal  of  Cleaner 
Production, Volume 282, 2021. 

16 Based on European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, October 2018 

as well as findings from the supporting study and Open Public Consultation. 

17 BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation, Durable and repairable products – changes needed for a successful path 

towards the green transition, June 2021. 

18 In relation to the consumer’s economic perspective, it can be assumed that the durability and reparability of products are 
even  more  relevant  for  lower-income  households  and  vulnerable  consumers,  and  therefore  the  durability  and 
reparability of products are also relevant for social sustainability. 

19 IATE, COM-SV based on The European consumer organisation (BEUC), Premature obsolescence when products fail 

too quickly, Factsheet, 2020. 

20 Commission Staff Working Document, Guidance on the Implementation/Application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
final, 

available 

at: 

Commercial 
SWD/2016/0163 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016SC0163 

Practices, 

21 See previous footnote.  
22  For  example  the  Forest  Stewardship  Council  (FSC)  label,  which  promotes  environmentally  appropriate,  socially 
beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. The Consumer Market Study on the functioning 

3 

 
 
                                                           
Other environmental sustainability and circularity aspects are explicitly not covered in this 
IA as they are already regulated elsewhere or may not be fit to be regulated in a horizontal 
consumer law instrument. For example, information on the energy efficiency23 of goods is 
not considered in this  IA as  it is already regulated by the mandatory EU Energy Label24. 
Recycling aspects are also already covered by product design and packaging rules or waste 
legislation25.  Moreover,  multiple  other  sector  specific  initiatives  are  being  prepared  and 
undertaken in the context of the Circular Economy Action Plan, such as in areas like plastics, 
textiles,  buildings  or  food.  Notwithstanding  this,  some  of  the  problems  addressed  in  this 
initiative in fact relate to all aspects of environmental sustainability. Insofar as this initiative 
addresses  misleading  environmental  claims,  it  addresses  claims  relating  to  all  aspects  of 
environmental  sustainability,  including,  for  example,  recycling  aspects.  Similarly,  in 
addressing  unreliable  sustainability  labels  and  digital  information  tools,  this  initiative 
addresses labels and tools relating to all aspects of sustainability, including all aspects of 
environmental sustainability. 

Interaction with existing legislation and upcoming initiatives 

As lex generalis, this initiative will provide for general consumer protection rules that will 
be complemented by other EU-level technical or sector-specific instruments (lex specialis), 
when  they  provide  for  more  detailed  rules.  This  applies  to  existing  rules  (for  example: 
ecolabels,  eco-design measures, food labelling  legislation) or upcoming initiatives.  There 
will thus be no change to the current relationship between environmental and product policy 
legislation and consumer law instruments. 

As further demonstrated in Section 5, this initiative is self-standing and developed in full 
coherence  with  the  upcoming  Green  Claims  Initiative  and  the  Sustainable  Products 
Initiative  (adopted  together  with  this  initiative),  both  also  announced  in  CEAP.  While 
these  initiatives  are  linked  in  their  purpose  to  enhance  sustainable  production  and 
consumption, they do so by focusing on different market participants, at different stages of 
the value chain. They also have differing product scopes and introduce different types of 
requirements.  

Indeed, this initiative will focus on the demand side, and more particularly at enhancing 
the environmental sustainability information provided to consumers at the point of the sale 
and at better protecting consumers from practices that could mislead them and thus interfere 
with  the  integrity  of  their  transactional  decisions,  luring  them  away  from  sustainable 
consumption  choices.  To  do  so,  it  will  focus  on  the  obligations  of  traders  towards 
consumers.   

The objective of the Green Claims initiative will be to introduce certain requirements in 
relation  to  environmental  claims  on  products  and  organisations.  The  initiative  would 
establish methodological requirements on how environmental claims are communicated and 
substantiated.  

The  main  objective  of  the  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  (SPI)  is  to  introduce 
sustainability  requirements  for  products  placed  on  the  market,  thus  targeting 
manufacturers. The SPI will create a framework that allows the setting of both minimum 

of voluntary food labelling schemes for consumers in the European Union (2013, p. 57) shows also the wide variety 
of sustainability attributes for food labels.  

23 Next to the durability and reparability of goods, the energy efficiency/energy use of goods is also a relevant parameter 

as linked to both environmental sustainability and consumer’s economic interests. 

24 See also Annex 7 and Annex 12. 
25 For example, via the Ecodesign Directive (Annex 7), the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (Directive 94/62/EC) 

and the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2018/851). 

4 

 
                                                           
requirements and information requirements for specific product or groups of products. The 
initiative should expand the scope of the Ecodesign Directive to a wider range of products, 
and to new types of requirements to better cover the life cycle of products, circularity and 
possibly  social  aspects.  Information  requirements  set  through  SPI  can  help  consumers 
distinguish the relevant products based on their sustainability performance (the information 
required  will  depend  on  the  product  and  can  range  from  the  origin  of  materials  to 
environmental performance, durability, reparability, chemicals of concern, handling at the 
end of life etc.). The SPI also aims to establish a digital product passport which would give 
access to such information along the value chain, with differentiated access to consumers, 
businesses and compliance authorities. The initiative examined in this IA would similarly 
contribute to the aim of allowing product differentiation by intervening at the point of sale 
and facilitating consumer access to relevant information, i.e. as regards to the durability or 
reparability of products. In this respect, the SPI will act as a lex specialis vis-à-vis horizontal 
consumer law information requirements by providing further information on the product or 
group of products in question in accordance with the specific requirements of the SPI. For 
further details on the interaction between the initiative subject to this Impact Assessment and 
other EU initiatives currently under preparation, please see Annex 7. 

In addition, as regards food products, this consumer law initiative is completed by actions 
announced in the Farm to Fork Strategy26. In particular, the Commission announced that 
it will make a legislative proposal for a sustainable food system and will examine ways to 
create  a  sustainable  food  labelling  framework  that  covers,  in  synergy  with  other  relevant 
initiatives, the nutritional, climate, environmental and social aspects of food products. As lex 
specialis,  such  a  labelling  framework  would  thus  further  specify  the  rules  set  out  under 
general  consumer  law  (and  therefore  those  flowing  from  this  initiative).  Additional 
regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives will also be developed to address specific groups 
of goods and services, such as ICT, electronics, textile, packaging or telecommunications, 
again, under the lex specialis logic.  

Finally, this initiative in conjunction with other initiatives in preparation, will also contribute 
to the right to repair27 as announced in the New Consumer Agenda, by giving consumers 
certain  horizontal  rights  regarding  access  to  information  on  reparability  or  by  better 
protecting consumers against early obsolescence practices (including a lack of reparability). 

Results of previous evaluations 

In  2017,  the  EU  Consumer  and  Marketing  Law  and  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive 
underwent a Fitness Check and evaluation, respectively.28 The findings from this exercise 
pointed primarily to the need to improve awareness, enforcement of the rules and redress 
opportunities to make the best of the existing legislation and highlighted a limited range of 
necessary changes due to digitalisation.  

Given  the  focus  on  enforcement  and  digitalisation,  there  were  no  specific  conclusions  in 
relation  to  the  contribution  of  the  consumer  acquis  to  sustainable  consumption,  an  issue 
which  in  fact  gained  further  political  prominence  a  number  of  years  later  with  the 

26 COM(2020)381 final, 20 May 2020, p. 20.  
27  More  information  on  this  initiative  at  the  following  website:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13150-Sustainable-consumption-of-goods-promoting-repair-and-
reuse_en 

28  Results of the Fitness Check of consumer and marketing law and of the evaluation of the Consumer Rights Directive 
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/items/59332  

5 

 
                                                           
announcement of the European Green Deal. Nevertheless, whenever possible and relevant, 
this Impact Assessment draws on the findings and conclusions collected in this exercise.   

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

In spite of consumers’ willingness to contribute to a greener and more circular economy in 
their everyday lives29, their effective and active role in this green transition is hampered by 
a lack of reliable information at the point of sale to make environmentally sustainable 
consumption  choices (Problem 1) and by  misleading  commercial  practices  related to 
the sustainability of products (Problem 2). As mentioned in Section 1 above, this Impact 
Assessment  will  address  primarily  the  lack  of  reliable  information  related  to  products’ 
durability  and  reparability, as well as  misleading practices related to  the  sustainability of 
products.  A  further  justification  for  the  selection  of  these  particular  aspects  of  reliable 
information and these particular misleading practices is provided below.  

These problems are the consequences of two types of drivers. On the market side, there is 
a lack of incentives to provide reliable environmental sustainability information and not to 
engage in certain practices. In addition, the regulatory framework fails to specify which 
information consumers should be provided with as regards these sustainability dimensions 
and does not address effectively certain misleading practices running counter to the aims of 
the green transition, making difficult effective enforcement. 

In turn, Problem 1 and Problem 2 translate into consequences for consumers (detriment, 
lack  of  trust),  businesses  (uneven  playing  field,  compliance  costs)  and  the  environment 
(non-realised benefits that a more sustainable consumption would bring). 

An overview as well as a more detailed analysis of the various stakeholder consultations 
conducted to measure the extent of the problems identified in this Impact Assessment can 
be found in Annex 2. 

2.1. 

Problem  1:  Consumers  lack  reliable  information  at  the  point  of  sale  to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices  

When  comparing  products  and  making  purchase  decisions,  evidence  suggests  that 
consumers  often  lack  reliable  information  at  the  point  of  sale  on  products’ 
environmental  sustainability.  This  includes  information  about  the  environmental 
characteristics of products, their durability/lifespan and their reparability. Detailed evidence 
identifying  the  lack  of  reliable  information  on  these  particular  aspects  as  particularly 
problematic is presented below. 

2.1.1.  Lack  of  reliable  information  on  the  environmental  characteristics  of 

products (Sub-problem 1.1) 

According  to  the  consumer  survey  conducted  for  this  Impact  Assessment,  half  of  the 
respondents  say  they  look  actively  for  information  about  the  environmental 
characteristics  of  products,  such  as  their  environmental  impacts  or  performance, 
greenhouse  gas  emissions,  water  use  etc.  However  a  large  number  of  them  find  that  the 
existing information is simply insufficient30.  

29 European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, 2018, p. 10. 
30 European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 367, 2013, p. 73.  

6 

 
 
                                                           
2.1.2.  Lack of reliable information on the lifespan of goods (Sub-problem 1.2) 

Evidence shows that information on the “expected lifespan” of goods (i.e. years of life, 
hours of use, number of cycles etc.) is  hardly ever made available to consumers. For 
instance,  the  mystery  shopping  exercise  carried  out  as  part  of  the  Study  supporting  this 
Impact  Assessment  showed  that  in  more  than  95 %  of  cases,  information  relating  to  the 
goods’  expected  lifespan  was  not  available.  This  is  confirmed  by  observations  from 
consumers and stakeholders, including manufacturers and retailers, surveyed for this Impact 
Assessment31.  

Information  about  the  “guaranteed  lifespan”  is  naturally  only  available  when  a 
commercial  guarantee  is  offered  by  the  trader  (corresponding  to  the  number  of  years 
covered  by  the  commercial  guarantee).  Moreover,  research  shows  that  while  consumer 
products are regularly offered with a commercial guarantee (in 66% of the mystery shops at 
least one commercial guarantee was offered, 38% of which were included in the price of the 
product), the information on such commercial guarantees, and the way that consumers 
are  being  charged,  is  often  unclear,  imprecise  or  incomplete  making  it  difficult  for 
consumers to compare between products and to distinguish this commercial guarantee 
from the (compulsory) legal guarantee. 32 

As  regards  information  on  the  availability  of  software  updates,  the  mystery  shopping 
exercise  carried  out  for  this  Impact  Assessment  showed  that  in  only  1.25%  of  cases  the 
product contained an indication that software updates and/or upgrades were ensured and in 
only one case information about the period of the commitment of the software updates was 
provided given (i.e. 12 months). Under the Sale of Goods Directive33, applicable as of 2022, 
a seller will have to supply the consumer with software updates for a period of time which 
the  consumer  might  reasonably  expect  so  as  to  ensure  that  the  product  remains  in 
conformity34. Nevertheless, the provision of information at the point of sale on the length of 
time during which a particular seller decides to provide software updates will not be required.  

2.1.3.  Lack of reliable information about products’ reparability (Sub-problem 

1.3) 

Information on products’ reparability, such as reparability scoring, on the availability 
of repair services, spare parts or repair manuals of goods, is not widely available to 
consumers at the point of sale35. For example, over 80% of the respondents pointed out 
that it is  difficult  to  find information  on how easy  it is  to  repair a product36. This  is  also 
corroborated by the results of the mystery shopping exercise carried out in the context of this 
Impact Assessment: information about reparability aspects such as availability of spare parts 

31 Only 23% of the manufacturers surveyed said that they provide this information for ‘all products’ and only 6% ‘for 
most’. 32% did not know the expected lifespan of their products and 17% said that they do not provide this information. 
15%  of  retailers  provide  information  on  the  expected  lifespan  of  products,  where  this  information  is  not  provided  by 
manufacturers. 59% of retailers said they provide this information for some products. 
32 European Commission, Consumer market study on the functioning of legal and commercial guarantees for consumers 
in the EU, 2015. European Commission, Impact Assessment supporting study: Study on Empowering Consumers Towards 
the Green Transition, July 2021. Commercial warranties: are they worth the money? ECC-Net, April 2019. 
33 Directive 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods 
34 Directive (EU) 2019/771, Art. 7(3) 
35 Information on reparability aspects of goods is not provided for more than 80% of all goods in the market.  European 
Commission, Impact Assessment supporting study: Study on Empowering Consumers Towards the Green Transition, 
July 2021.  

36 European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, 2018, p. 81. 

7 

 
                                                           
in  general,  period  of  time  of  availability  of  spare  parts  or  certified  repair  services  was 
available  only  in  19%  of  cases.  Contrary  to  this,  representatives  from  the  industry  and 
businesses  surveyed  for  this  Impact  Assessment  mostly  indicated  that  they  believed 
information on reparability is widely available37.   

2.2. 

Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to the 
sustainability of products 

Consumers are too often confronted with misleading commercial practices preventing 
them from taking sustainability into account in their purchases. Such practices occur at 
various stages of the consumption journey: during the advertising stage, the purchasing stage 
or during the use of the products. The following main categories of such practices have been 
identified in the consultations for this Impact Assessment as particularly problematic: 
-  Early obsolescence;  
-  Greenwashing; 
-  Non-transparent and non-credible sustainability labels, and digital information tools (e.g. 
mobile applications comparing the sustainability performance of selected products).  

These practices have also been singled out by consumer protection authorities, for instance, 
in  the  course  of  the  Fitness  Check  of  EU  Consumer  and  Marketing  Law  (2017)38  or  by 
Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) authorities39 who have highlighted difficulties to 
carry out enforcement actions on these issues (see Section 2.3 on drivers). Further evidence 
justifying the selection of these practices as particularly problematic is presented below. 

2.2.1.  Consumers are sold products that do not last as long as  they could or 

consumers expect (“early obsolescence”) (Sub-problem 2.1) 

Early obsolescence refers to instances where a product cannot be used for the expected 
purpose  and  breaks  earlier  than  expected40.  Within  early  obsolescence,  “planned 
obsolescence” refers specifically to a commercial policy involving deliberately planning 
or designing a product with a limited useful life so that it will become obsolete or non-
functional after a certain period of time41. 

Faster obsolescence of products is a growing concern for consumers. In their reply to the 
Open  Public  Consultation  to  support  this  IA,  76%  of  respondents  (and  89%  of  citizens) 
mentioned they had experienced an unexpected failure of products in the past 3 years42. ICT 
products  (47%),  small  household  appliances  (20%),  clothing  and  footwear  (19%),  other 
electronics (18%), large household appliances (16%) and software programmes (15%) were 
the most often cited product categories for which unexpected failure had been experienced. 

37  European  Commission,  Impact  Assessment  supporting  study:  Study  on  Empowering  Consumers  Towards  the  Green 

Transition, July 2021, Annex 8, Sec. 5.  

38 As regards environmental claims specifically. European Commission, Study for the Fitness Check of EU consumer and 
marketing law, 2017, p.39. 
39  The  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  (CPC)  is  a  network  of  authorities  responsible  for  enforcing  EU  consumer 
protection laws to protect consumers’ interests in the countries of the European Union (EU) and the European Economic 
Area (EEA). It has its basis in Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 
2017  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004. 
40 COM(2020)696 final, 13 November 2020, p. 5.  
41 SWD(2016) 163 final, p. 75. 
42 European Commission, A New Consumer Agenda Factual summary report – public consultation, 2020, p. 20.  

8 

 
 
                                                           
Available  studies  suggest  that  certain  consumer  goods  are  not  designed  to  last  long 
and/or have a shorter lifetime than would have been expected for such products in the 
past43,44. For example, an EU funded project, identified that a significant share of goods tend 
to fail right after the end of the minimum legal guarantee period (between second and third 
year)  based  on  consumer  reports  in  seven  Member  States45.  Similarly,  a  2015  German 
Study46 concluded that the percentage of large household appliances replaced by consumers 
within five years due to technical defects more than doubled, from 3.5% in 2004 to 8.3% 
in 2012. Several other studies carried out47,48,49 present evidence that the lifespan of some 
goods is becoming shorter, with technical failures being the main reason for product 
replacement.  

Interestingly,  while  issues  related  to  the  failure  of  goods  may  vary  depending  on  the 
characteristics  of  the  goods,  interim  findings  of  the  above  mentioned  EU  funded  project 
conclude that “a limited number of problem types account for four out of five failures, 
most of which refer to a specific part of a product, many of which appear to be shared 
across product categories (e.g. batteries, printed circuit boards and LCD screens)”50.  

Another study shows that in the case of smartphones and tablets, a large proportion of the 
devices  are  being  replaced  after  two  years  mostly  because  of  a  few  but  frequent 
problems: (1) the battery had stopped working and could not be replaced by the user; (2) 
the screen had cracked and could not be replaced by the user; or (3) the manufacturer was 
no  longer  willing  or  able  to  support  the  software51.  Recently,  national  consumer 
organisations have also received more than 25 000 complaints concerning two components 
of  a  gaming  console  (i.e.  its  two  controllers)  which  was  failing  prematurely  and  made 
difficult to repair or replace, rendering the console obsolete (well before the lifespan of 7 
to 10 years advertised by its manufacturer) and in spite of the manufacturer being aware 
of the problem52.  

Early obsolescence can thus also be linked to a limited but frequent set of practices, 
such as whether a component that is broken can be replaced by consumers and/or whether 
they are prevented/hampered in doing so by the trader, whether traders are taking sufficient 
and quick remedial actions when they become aware of a frequent default in one of their 
products etc.  

On top of these cases of early obsolescence, there have also been a number high-profile cases 
of planned obsolescence, such as software updates having an impact on the performance of 

43 United Nation Environment Programme, The Long View – Exploring Product Lifetime Extension, 2017, pp 20-24.  
44 European Parliament, Briefing – Planned obsolescence: exploring the issue, 2017.  
45 Research carried out by the PROMPT project, an independent testing programme assessing the lifetime of consumer 
products. It brings together research institutes, national and umbrella consumer organisations as well as repair companies 
and platforms. The project has received EU funding under Horizon 2020.   
PROMPT Project, State-of-the-art of consumers' product experiences related to premature obsolescence, forthcoming.  
46 European Parliament, Briefing – Planned obsolescence: exploring the issue, 2016, p. 3-4.  
47 Umwelt Bundesamt, Influence of the service life of products in terms of their environmental impact: Establishing an 
information base and developing strategies against "obsolescence", 2020, p. 85, p. 88, p. 24.  
48 European Parliament, Briefing – Planned obsolescence: exploring the issue, 2016, p. 4. 
49 M. Depypere, T. Opsomer, Relevance of Policy Measures to Increase Product Lifetimes: a Literature Review, 2018.  
50 PROMPT Project, State-of-the-art of consumers' product experiences related to premature obsolescence, forthcoming. 
51 Rizos, V., Bryhn, J., Alessi, M., Campmas, A. and Zarra, A., Identifying the impact of the circular economy on the Fast-
Moving Consumer Goods Industry Opportunities and challenges for businesses, workers and consumers–mobile phones 
as an example, 2019, p. 19, p. 25.  
52 BEUC letter to the European Commission indicating the issue of premature obsolescence of the product Nintendo Switch 
https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2021-002_nintendo_-_premature_obsolescence_complaint_to_the_ec.pdf  

9 

 
                                                           
phones  and  accelerating  their  replacement,  although  consumers  were  not  informed 
thereof53.It is important to note, however, that a number of manufacturers/retailers argue that 
planned obsolescence does not exist as a practice and that shorter lifespans are impacted by 
consumer behaviour such as poor maintenance and increased use.  

2.2.2.  Consumers are faced with the practice of making unclear or not well-
substantiated environmental claims (‘greenwashing’) (Sub-problem 2.2) 

Environmental (“green”) claims are defined as: the practice of suggesting or otherwise 
creating the impression (in a commercial communication, marketing or advertising) that a 
good or a service has a positive or no impact on the environment or is less damaging to the 
environment than competing goods or services.54 Green claims can be explicit (for instance, 
highlight the savings in greenhouse gas emissions due to a change of packaging), general 
(statements such as “green” product, “good for the environment” etc.) or even implicit (e.g. 
use of the colour green, certain images etc.). Whether a green claim can be said to have been 
made would therefore often require a concrete assessment on a case-by-case basis. A green 
claim can be made using a label or otherwise. Therefore, the options considered to combat 
certain  types  of  misleading  green  claims,  whether  in  this  initiative  or  in  the  forthcoming 
complementary Green Claims Initiative, would apply to labels insofar as those labels make 
a green claim of the type in question. A further specific problem relating to sustainability 
labels  will  be  addressed  in  section  2.2.3  below.  A  recent  Commission  study  on 
environmental claims found that 80% of webshops, webpages and advertisements surveyed 
contained  green  claims55.  45%  of  the  total  were  implicit  claims  (imagery  and  colours 
suggesting  environmental  benefit),  35%  were  explicit  claims  (logos,  labels  and  textual 
claims) and 21% were vague, general claims. Such a high prevalence was also identified in 
the mystery shopping carried out for this Impact Assessment56.  

The aforementioned study assessed 150 environmental claims and found that a considerable 
share  (53.3%)  of  them  provide  vague,  misleading  or  unfounded  information  on 
products’  environmental  characteristics  across  the  EU  and  in  a  wide  range  of  product 
groups  (both  in  advertisement  as  well  as  on  the  product).  These  results  have  also  been 
confirmed by the outcome of a  recent  “sweep”57 carried out  by the Consumer Protection 
Cooperation  authorities58.  Out  of  the  344  sustainability  claims  assessed  throughout 
November 2020, authorities had at least a reasonable doubt that the claim may be false 
or deceptive in almost half of the cases (42%), and therefore that these could potentially 
amount to an unfair commercial practice under the UCPD. CPC authorities considered 
that in more than half of the cases (57.5%), the trader did not provide sufficient elements 

updates, 

https://en.agcm.it/en/media/detail?id=4d458a5b-49ad-4d30-80e9-d3e9692fca36 

53 Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Proceedings initiated against Samsung and Apple for smartphone 
software 
and; 
https://www.agcm.it/media/comunicati-stampa/2018/10/PS11009-PS11039 
54 Commission Staff Working Document, Guidance on the Implementation/Application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair 
Commercial 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
SWD/2016/0163 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016SC0163  
55 European Commission, Environmental claims in the EU – inventory and reliability assessment, 2020. 
56 The mystery shopping exercise revealed that over half of products analysed (51%) had a claim (either logo, label, text, 
image  or  embodied  in  the  brand).  European  Commission,  Impact  Assessment  supporting  study:  ‘Study  on 
Empowering Consumers Towards the Green Transition’, July 2021.  

Practices, 

available 

final, 

at: 

57 A “sweep” is a set of checks carried out simultaneously by national enforcement authorities to identify breaches of EU 
consumer law in a particular sector or area. 
58 See: 2020 – sweep on misleading sustainability claims, https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-
and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/sweeps_en#2020-sweep-on-misleading-sustainability-claims  

10 

 
 
                                                           
allowing  for  a  judgement  about  the  claim’s  accuracy.  In  many  cases,  authorities  had 
difficulties  identifying  whether  the  claim  covered  the  whole  product  or  only  one  of  its 
components (50%), whether it referred to the company or only certain products (36%) and 
which stage of the product’s lifecycle it covered (75%). 37% of the claims included vague 
statements (such as “green”, “nature’s friend”) likely to deceive consumers.  

Most  stakeholders  consulted  for  this  Impact  Assessment  agreed  that  greenwashing  is  a 
problem,  with  the  noticeable  exception  of  industry  representatives.  The  results  of  the 
stakeholder consultations on the potential future use of the Product Environmental Footprint 
(PEF)  and  Organisation  Environmental  Footprint  (OEF)  methods59  show  that  56%  of 
respondents have already encountered misleading green claims.   

2.2.3.  Consumers  are  faced  with  the  use  of  sustainability  labels  and  digital 
information  tools  that  are  not  always  transparent  and  credible  (Sub-
problem 2.3) 

Sustainability labels are considered in this Impact Assessment as any voluntary “trust mark, 
quality mark or equivalent”60 that aims to set apart and promote a product, a process or a 
business  with  reference  to  environmental,  social  or  ethical  aspects.  These  labels  are 
developed by a wide array of bodies, organisations, legal or private entities (including public 
bodies, industry associations, for-profit as well as non-profit organisations, individually or 
in  partnership).  They  can  usually  be  found  directly  on  products  and  in  communication 
materials.  Ecolabels are those sustainability labels  which aim to  set  apart  and promote a 
product, a process or a business with reference to environmental aspects in particular. 

Digital  information  tools,  in  the  context  of  this  Impact  Assessment,  are  software  tools 
which  have  as  their  primary  purpose  to  provide  information  to  consumers  on  the 
sustainability of products with respect to environmental, social or ethical aspects.   

Both  sustainability  labels  and  digital  information  tools  are  used  to  promote  products  to 
consumers which are more sustainable, by providing information on their performance with 
respect to environmental as well as social and ethical aspects61.   

Numerous  voluntary  labels  have  as  a  stated  objective  to  guide  consumers  towards  more 
sustainable choices. There were around 230 ecolabels  active in  Europe in  2020 of which 
48%  cover  some  social  attributes62.  901  labelling  schemes  have  been  identified  across 
Europe in the food area63, and there have been 100 private green energy labels mapped in 
the EU.64  However, many labels are subject to different levels of robustness, supervision 
and transparency65 , which may raise questions about their reliability. Sustainability labels 
can be distinguished  according to their governance model:  those  that are run by  third 

59 European Commission, Report on 2018-2019 stakeholder consultations regarding the potential future use of the Product 
and Organisation Environmental Footprint methods, 2020, p. 81. 
60 Based on current wording of the UCPD. 
61  Rubik,  F.  and  Frankl,  P.,  The  future  of  eco-labelling:  Making  environmental  product  information  systems  effective. 

Routledge, 2017, p. 319 

62 See Ecolabel Index: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=region=europe 
63 European Commission, Consumer Market Study on the functioning of voluntary food labelling schemes for consumers 

in the European Union, 2013, p. 57. 

64 European Commission, Technical assistance for assessing options to establish an EU-wide green label with a view to 

promote the use of renewable energy coming from new installations. 

65 European Commission, Consumer Market Study on Environmental claims for non-food products, 2014, p. 28-29. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
party certification schemes, whose role is to ensure that companies wishing to use the labels 
will abide by a set of specific criteria (these certification schemes can be public, private, or 
non-profit);  and  those  based  on  “self-declarations”  not  verified  by  any  third  party66. 
Consumers appear not to be aware of such distinction.67 

This  proliferation  of  labels  combined  with  their  varied  governance  models  implies  that 
producers and retailers can apply a variety of strategies in opting for a specific sustainability 
label. Very often, this also translates into companies displaying various labels to vouch for 
the sustainability of their products. Interestingly, during the consultation conducted for this 
Impact  Assessment,  industry  representatives  were  more  likely  to  identify  the 
proliferation  of  sustainability  labels  as  a  problem  compared  to  consumers  and  their 
representatives.  

The analysis carried out in preparation for this Impact Assessment shows shortcomings as 
to the transparency of labels. For 27% of the labels examined, the standards/criteria which 
the label is meant to guarantee were not available online. 16% of labels did not disclose their 
conformity  assessment  method.  The  type  of  managing  authority  and  the  result  of  the 
assessment  were  also  often  not  disclosed.  Only  17%  of  labels  indicated  providing  for  a 
dispute  settlement  or  appeal  mechanism  with  regards  to  the  accuracy  of  the  information 
certified by the label. 

In addition, other evidence points to the problem of credibility of labels. For instance, 
only 35% of the labels analysed for this Impact Assessment required specific metrics or data 
to substantiate their compliance with the criteria. A previous analysis showed a higher level 
of compliance with a set of principles by labels relying on a certification scheme compared 
to  those  based  on  “self-declaration”68.  However,  some  shortcomings  have  also  been 
identified in relation to certification schemes. Some of those that have been examined have 
no  or  limited  information  on  their  supervisory  structure,  on  how  their  requirements  are 
developed or on how certification and inspections actually occur.  

According to the stakeholder consultations, the “proliferation of non-transparent online 
information  tools  that  are  providing  information/comparisons  on  the  sustainability 
performance of products” was identified as an obstacle to enhanced consumer participation 
in the circular economy by 11% of consumers69. It therefore does not seem to be considered 
as equally important a problem as labels. This could, however, change in the future, as such 
digital  information  tools  are  likely  to  become  more  and  more  important  in  influencing 
consumers’ behaviour due to the increased digitalisation of society. 

66 Gruère, G, A Characterisation of Environmental Labelling and Information Schemes, OECD Environmental Working 

Papers, Nº 62, OED Publishing Paris, 2013, p. 28-29. 

67 European Commission, Consumer Market study on environmental claims for non-food products, 2014, p. 20. 
68 In this case, the labels were assessed against the recommendations set out in European Commission, EU best practice 
guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, 2010. 
See European Commission, Consumer Market Study on Environmental claims for non-food products, 2014, p. 80.  
69  European  Commission,  Impact  Assessment  supporting  study:  Study on  Empowering  Consumers Towards  the  Green 

Transition, July 2021, Annex 8 section 4.1. 

12 

 
                                                           
2.3.  What are the problem drivers? 

The drivers behind these problems have been identified as  market failure, as well as an 
insufficiently adapted regulatory framework.70 The impact of these drivers on each of the 
problems and sub-problems identified is presented in Figure 1 below. It  also outlines the 
consequences  of  each  of  the  sub-problems  for  consumers,  for  the  market  and  the 
environment, which are presented in more detail in Annex 12, as well as the specific and 
general objectives of the initiative, which are discussed further in Section 4. 

70 Behavioural failure was not considered as an important driver behind the identified problems. This Impact Assessment 

was fed by the data and findings of recent behavioural studies, further described in Annex 12.  

13 

 
                                                           
Figure 1.  Problem tree 

14 

 
 
As can be seen from this problem tree, in relation to Problem 1 specifically (Consumers lack 
reliable information at the point of sale to make environmentally sustainable consumption 
choices),  one  driver  is  that  there  are  insufficient  incentives  for  companies  to  provide 
consumers  with  reliable  information  on  the  environmental  characteristics,  lifespans,  and 
reparability  of  their  products  unless  the  expected  benefits  in  terms  of  increased  demand 
outweigh the costs of providing that information71. A second driver is that under existing EU 
instruments,  making  information  on  products’  environmental  sustainability  available  is 
voluntary72 and/or limited to  certain  product  categories and/or features73,74.  In absence of 
common rules, this leads to different levels of protection of consumer rights among Member 
States when certain Member States would start regulating while others not. The EU’s general 
consumer protection rules (namely the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC 
- UCPD and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU - CRD) generally require traders 
to  provide  consumers  with  information  that  they  need  in  order  to  make  an  informed, 
independent  transactional  decision.  These  rules,  however,  do  not  specifically  require  the 
provision of reliable information about products’ environmental characteristics, lifespan or 
reparability.  

In relation  to  Problem  2 (Consumers face  misleading  commercial  practices  related to  the 
sustainability  of  products),  one  driver  is  that  manufacturers  and  sellers  have  economic 
incentives  to  manufacture  and  sell  goods  with  lifespans  that  are  shorter  than  they  could 
realistically be able to achieve, so that they can reduce their costs or sell new or replacement 
goods  to  consumers75.  Furthermore,  concerning  greenwashing,  the  increased  interest  of 
consumers in environmentally sustainable products provides an incentive to market products 
as environmentally friendly to gain a competitive advantage (or at least not to put oneself at 
a  disadvantage).  A  second  driver  is  the  lack  of  precision  of  the  EU  consumer  legal 
framework, making it difficult for national authorities to address the aforementioned issues 
effectively.  The  consumer  legal  framework  also  does  not  allow  Member  States  to  adopt 
stricter  consumer  protection  rules  given  its  full-harmonisation  character.  The  UCPD,  for 
instance, does not provide specific rules on environmental claims. The general provisions of 
the UCPD also apply where traders present environmental claims in ways that are unfair to 
consumers76.  However,  in  the  absence  of  more  specific  provisions,  its  principle-based 
approach requires a case-by-case assessment from enforcers including of the negative impact 
of the misleading practice on the integrity of the consumers’ transactional decision.  

2.4.  How will the problems evolve without intervention? 

Without the intervention of this initiative, the evolution of the problems and their drivers 
will depend on the interaction between various forces, including:  

- 

the evolution of the interest of consumers in sustainable products; 

71  European Commission, Links between production, the environment and environmental policy, 2019. 
72 Such as the voluntary EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 
73  For  example,  via  the  implementing  rules  for  specific  categories  of  energy-related  products  under  Energy  Labelling 
Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 and the Eco-design Framework Directive 2009/125/EC; for CO2 emission and fuel efficiency 
for cars under the Car labelling Directive 1999/94/EC.  
74 Annex 6 presents relevant existing EU legislation on, the type of sustainability information they provide for and the 
products concerned.  
75 J. Guiltinan, Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence, 2009, 
p. 21. 
76 Environmental claims on food and feed that are misleading can also be prohibited respectively by Regulation (EU) No 
1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and Regulation (EU) No 767/2009 on the placing on the 
market of feed. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
- 

the trends regarding private incentives to provide information on the environmental 
characteristics,  durability  and  reparability  of  products  and  incentives  to  fight 
greenwashing,  early  obsolescence  and  unreliable  or  non-transparent  sustainability 
labels and information tools; 

-  national  initiatives  and  EU-level  related  initiatives  that  attempt  to  address  the 
identified problems. The potential impact on the evolution of the problem of two EU 
initiatives  in  particular  currently  under  preparation  (the  upcoming  Green  Claims 
Initiative  and  the  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  adopted  together  with  this 
initiative) discussed in Section 5 below when analysing the baseline from which the 
options considered are to be assessed. 

Member States are likely to continue to unilaterally adopt options to provide consumers 
with environmental sustainability information and to address more directly the problematic 
practices identified in this Impact Assessment (see Annex 6). For instance, France’s Circular 
Economy Law, introduced in 2020, obliges producers, importers, distributors or any other 
person placing electrical and electronic products on the market to provide the reparability 
index of their product to sellers of their products or any other person requesting it. The aim 
is  to  inform  consumers  about  the  ability  to  repair  five  groups  of  products  (televisions, 
smartphones,  laptops,  lawnmowers  and  washing  machine).  To  take  an  example  of  a 
legislative  proposal  currently  under  consideration,  in  July  2020,  Italy  tabled  a  proposal 
which would define and ban the practice of planned obsolescence and introduce criminal 
sanctions for the producer or distributor of goods who mislead the consumers on a number 
of issues including planned obsolescence. 

The interest of consumers in sustainable products is expected to increase. With this increase 
it is expected that the incentives of companies to provide consumers with information 
on the sustainability of their products will also increase and so will the share of products 
with information on their environmental characteristics. This will, on the one hand, reduce 
the extent of problem 1.1 (lack of reliable information on environmental characteristics of 
products),  but  this  could  potentially  increase  the  incentives  to  adopt  greenwashing 
practices and to develop or use sustainability labels that are not fully transparent and 
credible and so exacerbate problems 2.2 and 2.3. Digitalisation is also likely to lead to an 
increase of “sustainability apps” aimed at comparing products based on their sustainability 
parameters.  The  number  of  sustainability  labels  may  stagnate  given  their  already  high 
number, but the number of one-brand sustainability labels may still increase. This will lead 
to an increase of the extent and consequences of the problem, including an increased mistrust 
of  consumers  on  sustainability  labels  and  a  reduction  of  their  effectiveness  in  shifting 
consumption towards more sustainable products. 

The  increase  in  the  market  share  of  sustainable  products  will  compensate  for  the  total 
increase in consumption and is expected to lead to a reduction of the overall environmental 
footprint of private consumption. However, the effective reduction of environmental impacts 
will depend on whether the information regarding the sustainability of the product is reliable 
or not. Without further regulatory intervention at national or EU level, this reduction may 
actually be limited because, as mentioned above, the incentives for companies to practice 
greenwashing  could  increase  as  demand  for  sustainable  products  rises.  Because  of  these 
opposite forces, only a limited reduction of environmental impacts is expected.  

16 

 
3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis 

The EU exercises a shared competence with Member States in the area of consumer policy. 
As stipulated in Article 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 
the EU shall contribute, inter alia, to protecting the economic interests of consumers as well 
as to promoting their right to information and education in order to safeguard their interests. 
Possible legislative action to be taken in relation to the problems analysed in this IA would 
be based on Article 114 TFEU, which requires the Commission to take as a base a high level 
of consumer protection in the context of the completion of the internal market, in conjunction 
with  Article 169 TFEU.  In  addition  to  pursuing internal  market  and consumer protection 
objectives,  the  proposal  will  also  pursue  a  high  level  of  environmental  protection,  by 
unlocking opportunities for the circular, clean and green economy. However, internal market 
and  consumer  protection  objectives  are  predominant  and  the  environmental  benefits  are 
complementary. Therefore it is appropriate to use Article 114 TFEU and Article 169 TFEU 
as the legal basis. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action   

The problems  analysed in this impact assessment are widespread and have a Union-wide 
character with the same drivers across the EU. All European consumers lack the necessary 
information  to  make  more  sustainable  choices  and  are  faced  with  the  same  problematic 
practices. As the problems identified affect all European consumers, only action taken at EU 
level will be effective. Other factors which make EU action necessary are the volume of B2C 
cross-border trade in the EU, as well as the fact that Member States77 are starting to address 
the problems identified in this impact assessment unilaterally. 

In the absence of EU-level action, these national initiatives, while bringing certain benefits 
to consumers and the environment at the national level, could further intensify and lead to a 
fragmentation of the Single Market, bringing in turn legal uncertainty and raising compliance 
costs.  Indeed,  the  size  and  intensity  of  cross-border  trade  are  high  enough  to  make  such 
economic activity in the Single Market extremely vulnerable to inconsistent or even merely 
divergent policy choices by Member States.  

The  UCPD  provides,  in  principle,  fully  harmonised  rules  regarding  unfair  commercial 
practices harming consumers' economic interests. The CRD provides fully harmonised rules 
concerning  pre-contractual  information  requirements  in  distance  and  off-premises  sales. 
Therefore, depending on circumstances, new legislative action at national level within the 
scope  of  these  Directives  could  go  against  the  fully  harmonised  acquis  that  is  already  in 
place.  

Widespread infringements of consumer rights have now been legally defined by the revised 
CPC  Regulation78,  which  provides  a  powerful  procedural  framework  for  cooperation 
between national enforcers in this respect. But, to be fully effective, enforcement across the 
EU must also be grounded in a common and uniform substantive law framework. In other 

77 See Annex 6.   
78 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between 
national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
2006/2004 

17 

 
 
                                                           
words,  to  be  fully  effective,  the  EU  consumer  acquis  must  more  clearly  define  which 
greenwashing and obsolescence practices should be considered as unfair.  

Feedback of stakeholders on the Inception Impact Assessment shows a particularly strong 
support for  EU  action capable of bringing  about a  common approach to  the provision  of 
sustainability  information  to  consumers  and  to  limit  the  proliferation  of  labels  and 
misleading green claims on the Single Market, for instance.  

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action  

The 2017 Fitness Check of the Consumer and Marketing Law as well as the evaluation of 
the Consumer Rights Directive confirmed that the horizontal EU consumer and marketing 
law acquis has contributed towards a high level of consumer protection across the EU. It has 
also ensured a better functioning internal market and helped to reduce costs for businesses 
offering goods and services cross-border79. As this initiative aims at completing this acquis 
to address problems that have become more acute with the green transition, and to render its 
enforcement more effective, it is also expected to achieve the same added-value.  

EU action can ensure that consumers have the same environmental sustainability information 
across the Single Market which will help them to make informed purchasing choices, thus 
reducing the risk of a legal fragmentation of the Single Market and the consequences that 
this would entail for cross-border trade and consumer protection. This initiative would also 
alleviate  the  difficulties  faced  by  national  authorities  in  enforcing  the  existing  principle-
based  provisions  of  the  UCPD  in  such  complex  areas  as  misleading  green  claims  and 
obsolescence practices. By specifying further when and how such practices would qualify 
as unfair, it would increase the effectiveness of consumer protection within the EU. 

By building in a targeted way on the EU consumer law acquis, this initiative will also rely 
on  the  full  spectrum  of  enforcement  mechanisms,  as  strengthened  under  the  Better 
enforcement and modernisation Directive80, the Representative Actions Directive81 and the 
revised CPC Regulation82. 

This initiative will cover only the aspects that Member States cannot achieve on their own 
and  where  the  administrative  burden  and  costs  are  commensurate  with  the  specific  and 
general  objectives  to  be  achieved.  Proportionality  will  be  carefully  designed  in  terms  of 
scope and intensity and using qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria to ensure that 
the options considered will cover all relevant stakeholders, but will be tailored to the needs 
they must address. None of the options analysed in this impact assessment goes beyond what 
is necessary to achieve the objectives set in the following section.  

79 SWD(2017) 209 final, page 73.  
80  Directive  (EU)  2019/2161 of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the  Council of  27  November  2019  amending  Council 
Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules 

81 Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions 

for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC 

82 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between 
national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
2006/2004 

18 

 
 
                                                           
4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objectives 

The general objectives of the policy options discussed in this Impact Assessment flow from 
the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the commitments taken by the EU to 
tackle climate and environmental-related challenges83:   

-  Ensure a smooth functioning of the Single Market, for the benefit of both consumers 

and traders (Article 114 TFEU, 169 TFEU). 

-  Foster the role of consumption in achieving the EU’s climate goals and protecting 

the environment;  

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

The specific objectives are to: 

-  Enable  informed  purchasing  decisions  by  consumers  to  foster  sustainable 

consumption. This addresses Problem 1.  

-  Eliminate  practices  that  mislead  consumers  away  from  sustainable  consumption 

choices. This addresses Problem 2.  

-  Ensure a better and coherent application of the EU legal framework thanks to clearer 
and more enforceable rules. This addresses both problems. Coherent application of 
EU rules is  indeed necessary to  ensure effective  consumer protection and a level-
playing field for businesses within the Single Market.  

To allow for a more granular assessment of the effectiveness of the various options to be 
presented in Section 5 in meeting these three specific objectives, these objectives will be 
further broken down into 6 criteria, as shown in  Annex 9. Each option’s impacts  will be 
measured against (1) the quality of consumer decision making, (2) circularity and sustainable 
consumption, (3) consumer protection, (4) consumer trust, (5) level playing field and (6) the 
application of the EU legal framework.  

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The  baseline  (Option  0  as  presented  in  the  MCA  in  Annex  9)  does  not  involve  the 
introduction  of  any  new  regulatory  measures  under  consumer  policy  at  EU  level.  

As  regards  Problem  1  (Consumers  lack  reliable  information  at  the  point  of  sale  to  make 
environmentally  sustainable  consumption  choices),  the  extent  of  the  problem  and  its 
consequences is expected to remain constant for most of the EU27 countries and to improve 
for  some  products  in  a  few  Member  States  that  are/will  try  to  address  the  problem  with 
national  legislation,  as  identified  in  Annex  6.  The  Consumer  Rights  Directive  requires 
traders to provide consumers with information on, among others, the main characteristics of 
the goods or services. It includes specific information requirements about the existence of 
the  legal  guarantee  of  conformity,  as  well  as  additional  commercial  guarantees  when 
provided on a voluntary basis. While the Sale of Goods Directive promotes durability of 
products  through the legal  guarantee, it  only  provides rights  to  the  consumers  during the 
minimum two-year legal guarantee period. The incentives to provide commercial guarantees 

83 COM/2019/640 final, 11 December 2019. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
included in the product price and with longer duration are not expected to change. Regarding 
the provision of software updates, while the application of national transposition rules of the 
Sale of Goods Directive from 2022 will help to ensure that consumers are supplied with 
software  updates  so  that  a  product  remains  in  conformity  for  a  period  of  time  which  the 
consumer might reasonably expect, the comparability of product at the point of sale based 
on the availability of software updates will not be addressed, and is therefore expected to 
remain an issue.  

The incentives to provide information to consumers on expected/estimated lifespan are also 
not expected to change significantly for most products. While important new reparability 
requirements  under  Ecodesign  came  into  force  in  March  2021  for  a  number  of  product 
categories (including more information in user manuals)84, they will not address specifically 
the information that consumers are provided by traders on products’ reparability at the point 
of sale, and certainly not for all products categories. 

As  regards  Problem  2  (Consumers  face  misleading  commercial  practices  related  to  the 
sustainability of products), the risk of an increase in the share of products employing these 
practices is expected to grow, as the environmental sustainability of products is an aspect 
being valued by an increasing number of consumers. The general provisions of the Unfair 
Commercial  Practices  Directive  on  misleading  practices  can  be  used  to  apply  also  to 
planned obsolescence cases when they negatively affect consumers on the basis of a case-
by-case assessment. There are no specific provisions in this area in the Directive or in its 
Annex I (blacklist) which sets out practices regarded as unfair under all circumstances. The 
lack of more specific rules and the need for case-by-case assessment of the effects of the 
practice on the consumers makes it difficult to enforce the UCPD in this area. Some minor 
changes are expected to the extent of this problem due to new legal actions at the national 
level under existing European consumer legal framework.85 

The  general  provisions  of  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive  apply  also  to 
greenwashing practices when those are misleading and negatively affect consumers on the 
basis  of  a  case-by-case  assessment.  There  are  no  specific  provisions  in  this  area  in  the 
Directive  or  in  its  Annex  I  (blacklist)  which  sets  out  practices  regarded  as  unfair  in  all 
circumstances. The recent CPC screening of websites for ‘greenwashing’86, confirmed that 
there is a need for strengthening the legal framework to facilitate enforcement in this area. 
In  the  short  term,  the  European  Commission  will  further  develop  the  guidance  on  the 
application of the UCPD to support Member States in this area. Some Member States are 
increasing  efforts  to  stop  these  practices  and  may  launch  further  enforcement  cases. 
However, these will not help to address the drivers identified in section 2.3. The number of 
digital information tools (e.g. apps) to compare the sustainability performance of products 
may grow in a more and more digitalised world. 

When considering the baseline from which the options to be presented below are assessed, 
however,  it  is  important  to  highlight  at  this  stage  two  other  EU-level  initiatives  under 
preparation which, while failing to adequately address the sub-problems identified in this 

84 New requirements on the reparability of appliances have been introduced in these ecodesign measures: availability of 
spare parts, easy replaceability and access to repair and maintenance information for professional repairers have been 
introduced for refrigerating appliances, household dishwashers, household washing machines and household washer-
dryers, electronic displays and refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function. Also, consumer’s access to user 
instructions is expected to improve in the form of a user manual on a free access website of the manufacturer. 
85  See  link  for  an  example  of  a  recently  launched  case  by  different  consumer  organisations:  https://www.test-

achats.be/action/espace-presse/communiques-de-presse/2020/class-action-apple   

86 See: 2020 – sweep on misleading sustainability claims, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_269  

20 

 
                                                           
report,  will  nonetheless  complement  the  preferred  policy  options  presented,  namely  the 
upcoming  Green  Claims  Initiative  and  the  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  (adopted 
together with this initiative). 

These two initiatives and the one subject to this Impact Assessment are prepared in parallel 
and in close coordination to ensure their complementarity. However, notwithstanding this 
close  coordination,  the  three  initiatives  are  nonetheless  separate,  and  while  the  policy 
options  of  the  Green  Claims  Initiative  and  the  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  have  been 
taken into account in the policy options (in relation to “information at the point of sale” and 
“misleading  practices”) assessed in this Impact  Assessment, it cannot be guaranteed that 
each of these other initiatives will be adopted and will become EU law, which is pending the 
upcoming  ordinary  legislative  procedure.  The  baseline  for  this  initiative  (Option  0  as 
presented in the MCA in Annex 9), as well as the impacts of the policy options (presented 
in Section 6) against this baseline, were therefore calculated without taking into account any 
potential overlap of the impacts of these initiatives.87 

To  the  extent  that  the  options  considered  in  this  Impact  Assessment  overlap  with  the 
preferred policy options of these initiatives, this has been taken into account in a qualitative 
way in the description of the options presented in Section 5.2 below for each of the 6 sub-
problems  individually.  The  SPI  could  set  requirements  for  information  to  be  provided  in 
relation to specific products or groups of products with the exact requirements depending on 
the characteristics of the relevant product(s). One possibility would be to have a machine 
readable symbol such as a QR code that links to a digital product passport attached to the 
product.  The  exact  timeline  for  the  implementation  of  any  product  specific  information 
requirements under the SPI is not foreseeable, due to the fact that these would be introduced 
progressively through subsequent product measures.88 

Complementary  to  the  initiative  subject  to  this  Impact  Assessment,  a  self-regulatory 
initiative  has  been  announced  in  the  New  Consumer  Agenda,  which  was  launched  in 
January  2021.  The  voluntary  EU  Green  Consumption  Pledge  requires  participating 
companies to take actions in support of sustainable consumption beyond what is required by 
law.89    It  calls  upon  businesses  in  various  sectors  of  the  economy  to  undertake  concrete, 
public  and  verifiable  commitments,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  to  reduce  their  overall  carbon 
footprint,  to  produce  and  market  more  sustainable  products  and  to  redouble  their  efforts 
towards raising the awareness of consumers about the impact of their consumption choices. 
So far, 11 companies have come forward (including two SMEs), as part of the pilot phase: 
they  represent  various  sectors  in  the  manufacturing  and  retail  world,  but  also  financial 
services  and  energy  supply.  The  pilot  phase  of  the  Green  Consumption  Pledge  will  be 
completed by 2022, including an evaluation of the functioning of the Pledge.  

87 Please see Sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 of the Study accompanying this Impact Assessment for further analysis and 

justification of this decision. 

88 As under the current Ecodesign Directive, the future SPI working plans will set out the priorities and timelines for the 

adoption of product-specific rules. 

89 See EU Green Consumption Pledge Initiative, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/consumers/consumer-protection/green-consumption-pledge-initiative_en 

21 

 
 
                                                           
5.2.  Description of the policy options 

The  policy  options  were  established  by  the  Commission  in  close  cooperation  with  all 
relevant  groups  of  stakeholders.  Stakeholder  opinion  on  possible  options  was  sought  at 
various  stages  of  the  development  of  the  Impact  Assessment90.  As  a  follow-up  to  these 
consultations and progress  made in  the development of the  Impact  Assessment,  the  main 
options  included  in  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment  have  been  further  developed  and 
refined. Rather than focusing on the legal technique – which was the main differentiating 
factor in the three options outlined in the IIA – the options outlined in this Impact Assessment 
focus  on  policy  solutions  for  each  of  the  individual  sub-problems  identified.  Such  an 
approach also allows to ensure complementarity with the ongoing work on the Green Claims 
and SPI initiatives referenced in section 5.1. This complementarity is further outlined below 
in the description of the baseline from which each of the options presented are assessed. For 
a number of sub-problems identified, options were discarded at an early stage and are not 
presented in the tables below. These discarded options are presented in Annex 11. 

Regarding the product scope analysed for Problem 1 (Consumers lack reliable information 
at the point of sale to make environmentally sustainable consumption choices), four different 
potential product scopes were considered. These were narrow product scope (i.e. all goods 
with digital content), medium product scope (i.e. all energy-using goods), wide product 
scope  (i.e.  all  goods  with  assembled  parts  that  move  relative  to  one  another,  e.g.,  most 
furniture,  some  suitcases,  some  non-energy  using  toys,  bicycles,  etc.),  and  very  wide 
product  scope  (i.e.  all  consumer  goods  except  consumables  and  fast  moving  ones,  e.g. 
cloths,  pans,  bed  linen).  Evidence  regarding  the  existence  of  the  problem  of  limited 
durability and reparability, consumer expectations concerning the durability and reparability 
of goods (beyond the legal guarantee period), and consumer interest in receiving information 
on  these  aspects,  is  mostly  available  for  the  medium  product  scope  (i.e.  energy-using 
products); for the remaining types of products far less evidence is available. Furthermore, 
the availability of evidence can be considered a proxy for the size of the problem (and of the 
expected benefits if addressed) for the various product groups as it is reasonable to expect 
that  research  tends  to  focus  on  the  most  relevant  problems/product  categories.  For  this 
reason, while the available evidence allows for robust conclusions on the benefits of possible 
measures (to address sub-problem 1.2 and sub-problem 1.3) for the medium product scope, 
it is insufficient to soundly confirm them for a wider product scope. A detailed analysis of 
this assessment can be found in Annex 13. Concerning option 1.3.E in particular, no product 
scope was defined as this option is designed to apply wherever the information in question 
is made available by the manufacturer or required to be made available under applicable EU 
or national law, regardless of the product in question. 

As  regards  Problem  2  (Consumers  face  misleading  commercial  practices  related  to  the 
sustainability of products), no specific product scope was analysed, as these practices and 
the options considered to address them apply regardless of product type. 

In order to facilitate decision-making as regards the preferred combination of policy options, 
the options considered to address each of the individual sub-problems under Problem 1 and 
Problem 2 are structured in a way that their impacts can be easily compared, and that one 
preferred policy option can therefore be chosen to address each sub-problem. This allows, 

90  See  Annex  2  for  a  description  of  consultation  activities  including  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment,  Open  Public 
Consultation, stakeholder and expert workshops as well as meeting with CPC authorities. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
for each sub-problem, the option with the most positive impact to be chosen as the preferred 
policy option. The considerations regarding the delineation of the particular policy options 
for each individual sub-problem is further specified below for each sub-problem in turn.

23 

 
5.2.1.  Problem 1: Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to make environmentally sustainable consumption choices 

5.2.1.1. Sub-problem 1.1: Lack of reliable information about products’ environmental characteristics 
For this sub-problem, a number of options have been discarded at an early stage, as their added value could not be demonstrated if taken via a 
horizontal consumer law instrument. These options are the following: an obligation to inform on product’s environmental characteristics for 
all consumer products (goods and services), an obligation to warn on products with high negative impacts on the environment, an obligation 
to  warn  when  there  is  “no  proof”  of  good  environmental  performance  of  the  product,  and  an  obligation  to  inform  on  one  single  key 
environmental characteristic, i.e. related to climate change. Further details of these options and the reasons for discarding them is provided in 
Annex 11. In general, environmental characteristics of products are always specific to product groups. Depending on the product group, the relevant 
information on environmental characteristics to be provided at the point of sale differs significantly. For these reasons, it was concluded that a 
horizontal consumer law instrument would not be the appropriate place to introduce such requirements. Furthermore, the extent of this sub-problem 
as described in section 2.1.1 is expected to reduce significantly due to measures taken under the upcoming Green Claims Initiative and the SPI 
initiative.  The  Green  Claims  Initiative  aims  to  provide  a  common  framework  for  those  companies  wishing  to  provide  information  on  the 
environmental characteristics of their products. In the future, the SPI initiative, future eco-design information requirements and mandatory EU 
labelling schemes (e.g. EU energy label) will address this problem by  requiring mandatory information on certain environmental characteristics 
be provided for various product categories.  As a result no options will be selected to address this particular sub-problem as part of this Impact 
Assessment. 

5.2.1.2. Sub-problem 1.2: Lack of reliable information about products’ lifespan  

What are the options considered in order to address this sub-problem? 

While the three options presented below to address this sub-problem are not mutually exclusive, they are not considered in combination 
as this would entail significant duplication of impacts. The purpose of the  division into three distinct policy options is to calculate the 
impacts of the options as accurately as possible, and thus to facilitate a decision regarding the preferred policy option. 

Description of the option 

Product scope 

Addressees 

Nature 
intervention 

of 

24 

 
 
Option  1.2.A:  Obligation 
consumers 
to 
about 
expected 
lifespan of goods 

inform 
the 

lifespan/durability  of  goods, 

Inform  consumers  at  the  point  of  sale  about  the 
expected/estimated 
in 
number  of  years91,  number  of  working  cycles,  other 
metrics inherent to the good or by means of a “durability 
index”92.When  no  EU  harmonised  standards93  exist  for 
the  specific  good’s  category  to  determine  the  expected 
durability for the good in question (as is already the case 
for e.g. light bulbs) or until they become available (e.g. to 
be  developed  under  the  future  SPI  or  Ecodesign 
requirements), producers would be free to decide on the 
exact method to assess the expected lifespan of the goods. 

Option  1.2.B:  Obligation 
to  inform  consumers  of 
the  existence  (or  absence) 
of 
producer’s 
commercial  guarantee  of 
durability 

a 

Inform consumers at the point of sale of the existence or 
absence  of  a  producer’s  commercial  guarantee  of 
durability95 – and of its length - for the entire good and 
for  a  duration  of  at  least  two  years.  This  commercial 
guarantee  would  serve  as  a  proxy  for  consumers  to 
identify  which  products  are  expected  to  have  a  longer 
lifespan. 

Option 
1.2.C:  Option 
to 
1.2.B  +  Obligation 
inform  consumers  on  the 
time  during 
period  of 
which 
software 
free 
updates will be provided 

In  addition  to  Option  1.2.B,  inform  consumers  at  the 
point of sale about a minimum period of time (in number 
of years) during which the producer commits to provide 
free  software  updates,  including  security  updates,  for 
goods with digital elements as well as digital content and 
digital services to keep them in conformity, if this period 

Medium  product  scope  (i.e. 
all energy-using goods)94 

Medium  product  scope  (i.e. 
all energy-using goods) 

based 

on 
provided 

Sellers, 
information 
manufacturers 
information 
methodology/assumptions 
used by manufacturers). 

the 
by 
(including 
the 

about 

on 

the 
based 
Sellers, 
information  provided  by  the 
manufacturers. 
  Sellers  will 
inform  consumers  about  the 
existence or absence, while the 
the 
guarantor  will 
manufacturer. 

be 

For  option  1.2.B,  medium 
product scope (i.e. all energy-
using goods). 

Sellers, 
the 
based 
information  provided  by  the 
manufacturers.  

on 

For  software  updates,  only 
digital 
for 

goods  with 

the  

Amending 
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

the  

Amending 
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

the  

Amending 
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

91 In this case, the trader would need to qualify the duration with an explicit indication of the intensity (e.g. assuming 3 washing cycles or 3 hours of use per week). 
92 For example, such as the French Durability index which is planned to be introduced from 2024 onwards, in accordance with the French Circular Economy Law 2020. 
93 A harmonised standard is a European standard developed by a recognised European Standards Organisation. It is created following a request from the European Commission to one of these 
organisations. Manufacturers, other economic operators, or conformity assessment bodies can use harmonised standards to demonstrate that products, services, or processes comply with 
relevant EU legislation. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards_en 

94 For details on the assessment of the impacts of different potential product scopes, see Annex 13 “Analysis of product scope for providing durability/reparability information” 
95 In accordance with the Sale of Goods Directive (SGD), a ‘producer’s commercial guarantee of durability’ means any undertaking by a producer (the guarantor) to the consumer, in addition to 
the seller’s legal obligation relating to the guarantee of conformity (legal guarantee), to replace or repair the goods  in accordance with Article 14 of SGD (i.e. free of charge, within a reasonable 
period, without any significant inconvenience to the consumer…) if these goods have not been able to maintain their required functions and performance through normal use. 

25 

 
 
 
                                                           
is  longer  than  the  period  of  the  producer’s  commercial 
guarantee of durability. 

elements)96 
content/service97. 

and 

digital 

How do these options interact with the other initiatives in preparation? 
Under the Sustainable Products Initiative, specific information requirements on the expected/estimated durability for specific product 
categories may become available, when considered feasible and appropriate, subject to future Impact Assessments of delegated acts (under the 
framework legislation)  and further technical work (see sub-option 4a in the Impact Assessment for the Sustainable Products Initiative). This 
information could furthermore be made available to consumers in the form of a Digital Product Passport (see sub-option 4b of the Impact 
Assessment for the Sustainable Products Initiative). As such measures would not specifically require the information to be presented in a clear 
and legible way at the point of sale, and would be implemented gradually and by product category, the extent of the problem and its 
consequences is expected to remain unchanged for many products.  

5.2.1.3. Sub-problem 1.3: Lack of reliable information about products’ reparability 

What are the options considered in order to address this sub-problem? 

The  structure  followed  by  the  presentation  of  the  options  for  this  sub-problem  is  as  follows:  Options  1.3.A,  1.3.B.,  1.3.C  and  1.3.D  are  all 
complementary, while option 1.3.E entails a combination of 1.3.A, 1.3.B, 1.3.C and 1.3.D with slight modifications. The purpose of the division 
into five distinct policy options is to calculate the impacts of the options as accurately as possible, and thus to facilitate a decision regarding the 
preferred policy option. 

Description of the option 

Product scope 

Addressees 

Nature 
of 
intervention 

96 ‘Goods with digital elements:’ any tangible movable items that incorporate or are inter-connected with digital content or a digital service in such a way that the absence of that digital content or 
digital service would prevent the goods from performing their functions (‘goods with digital elements’). 
97 ‘Digital content’ means data which are produced and supplied in digital form;(2) ‘digital service’ means:(a) a service that allows the consumer to create, process, store or access data in digital 
form; or (b) a service that allows the sharing of or any other interaction with data in digital form uploaded or created by the consumer or other users of that service. 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Option  1.3.A:  Provision  of 
updated, 
user-friendly 
repair and user manuals 

Provide consumers with a user-friendly repair and user manual 
at the point of sale (paper or digital version). In case the seller 
did not receive the manual, the consumer would be informed in 
a prominent way that this manual is not available. 

Medium  product  scope 
(i.e. 
energy-using 
goods)98 

all 

Sellers, but the manual 
is  to  be  developed  and 
provided 
by 
manufacturers. 

Amending the  
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

Option  1.3.B:  Provision  of 
information about how long 
and  which  spare  parts  are 
available 

Inform consumers at the point of sale about the spare parts that 
the manufacturer will make available and for how long they will 
remain  available.  In  case  the  seller  did  not  receive  the 
information,  the  consumer  would  be  informed  in  a  prominent 
way that this commitment is not available. 

Medium  product  scope 
(i.e. 
energy-using 
goods) 

all 

but 

Sellers, 
the 
information  is  to  be 
provided  to  the  seller 
by manufacturers. 

Amending the  
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

Option  1.3.C:  Provision  of 
information  on  availability 
of repair services 

Option  1.3.D:  Reparability 
Scoring Index 

Inform consumers at the point of sale of the availability of repair 
services. The seller would be free to decide whether it will refer 
to  either  manufacturers’  authorised  repairers  or  independent 
repairers or to both. In case no repair services are available, the 
consumer  would  be  informed  in  a  prominent  way  that  such 
services are not available. 
Provide  consumers,  at  the  point  of  sale,  with  a  repair  scoring 
index, showing how reparable a product is (for example, with 3 
to 5 classes). Until precise measurement and calculation methods 
are provided for specific product categories under EU legislation 
such as Ecodesign or SPI, manufacturers would be required to 
apply  the  general  method  developed  by  the  Joint  Research 
Centre99. 

Medium  product  scope 
(i.e. 
energy-using 
goods) 

all 

Sellers 

Amending the  
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

Medium  product  scope 
(i.e. 
energy-using 
goods) 

all 

but 

Sellers, 
the 
assessment to establish 
the  scoring  would  be 
the 
carried  out  by 
manufacturer 

Amending the  
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

Option  1.3.E:  Provision  of 
Repair  Scoring  Index,  or 
other 
repair 
relevant 
information  on  a  where 
applicable/available basis 

Provide  consumers,  at  the  point  of  sale,  with  a  repair  scoring 
index, showing how reparable a product is (for example, with 3 
to  5  classes),  whenever  this  is  available  or  required  for  that 
product  in  accordance  with  EU  or  national  applicable  laws. 
When  no  such  repair  scoring  index  is  required  or  available, 
provide consumers at the point of sale with other relevant repair 
information when made available by the manufacturer, such as 

Open  product  scope  (i.e. 
product 
is  not 
scope 
defined) 

Sellers,  based  on  the 
be 
information 
provided 
the 
by 
manufacturers. 

to 

Amending the  
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive 

98 For details on the assessment of the impacts of different potential product scopes, see Annex 13 “Analysis of product scope for providing durability/reparability information”. 
99 JRC Technical Report, Analysis and development of a scoring system for repair and upgrade of products,2019, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/analysis-and-development-scoring-system-

repair-and-upgrade-products  

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
information  about  the  availability  of  spare  parts,  including  a 
procedure for ordering them, information about the availability 
of repair services, or the availability of a repair manual. 

How do these options interact with the other initiatives in preparation? 
Under the Sustainable Products Initiative, specific information requirements on specific product categories may become available, when 
considered feasible and appropriate, subject to future Impact Assessments of delegated acts (under the framework legislation)  and further 
standardisation work (see sub-option 4a of the Impact Assessment for the Sustainable Products Initiative). This information could furthermore be 
made available to consumers in the form of a Digital Product Passport (see sub-option 4b of the Impact Assessment for the Sustainable Products 
Initiative). As such measures would not specifically require the information to be presented in a clear and legible way at the point of sale, and 
would be implemented gradually and by product category, the extent of the problem and its consequences is expected to remain unchanged for 
most products.  

5.2.2.  Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to the sustainability of products 

5.2.2.1. Sub-problem 2.1: Consumers are sold products that do not last as long as they could and consumers expect 

What are the options considered in order to address this sub-problem? 

While the two options presented below to address this sub-problem are not mutually exclusive, they are not considered in combination as this 
would entail significant duplication of impacts. The purpose of the division into two distinct policy options is to calculate the impacts of the options 
as accurately as possible, and thus to facilitate a decision regarding the preferred policy option.  

Description of the option 

Product scope 

Addressees 

Option 2.1.A: Collection of 
evidence on early failures of 
products 
by 
authorised entities 

identified 

In  all  EU  27  countries,  a  collection  by  third  party  “authorised 
entities”  (such  as    consumer  organisations,  market  monitoring 
bodies,  nominated  by  Member  States)  of  evidence  (results  of 
independent testing, based on consumer complaints etc.) on certain 
aspects of the product’s design that could cause an early failure of 
the  product,  thus  reducing  its  lifespan.  The  authorised  entities 
would be asked to make this information available to the public via 
appropriate communication channels (e.g. website etc.). 

Fully  horizontal  product 
scope but due to its nature 
would  only  be  applicable 
to specific cases involving 
durable consumer goods  

Authorised  entities 
collecting 
this 
evidence, 
nominated 
Member States. 

by 

Nature 
intervention 

of 

New provisions 
in  a  separate 
instrument 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Option  2.1.B:  Ban  of 
certain  identified  practices 
associated  with 
early 
obsolescence 

Fully  horizontal  product 
scope but due to its nature 
would  only  be  applicable 
to specific cases involving 
durable consumer goods  

Ban of specifically identified early obsolescence practices such as 
providing software updates resulting in slowing down goods with 
digital  elements  or  digital  content/service  without  clearly 
informing  the  consumer  thereof;  not  providing  software  updates 
which  are  needed  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the  device  (in 
accordance  with  legal  requirements100);  marketing  of  goods 
without  disclosing  the  fact  that  these  goods  have  been  designed 
with a view to limit their durability; marketing of goods without 
disclosing the fact that they do not allow disassembly or repair (in 
accordance  with  legal  requirements)  such  as  not  allowing  the 
battery or the screen to be replaced by the user  101; marketing of 
goods  that  are  designed  in  a  way  to  induce  the  consumer  into 
replacing their consumables earlier than for technical or other valid 
reasons is necessary, or to prevent the use of consumables provided 
by alternative producers without informing the consumer thereof. 

are 
these 
towards 

that 
in 

Traders 
engaged 
practices 
consumers, 
including 
manufacturers 

Amending 
Unfair 
Commercial 
Practices 
Directive 

How do these option interact with other initiatives in preparation? 
Some changes are expected regarding the extent of the problem and its consequences thanks to the improvements concerning the durability of 
some products (or some of the product components) and their reparability as a consequence of the Sustainable Products Initiative, when 
considered feasible and appropriate, subject to future Impact Assessments of delegated acts and further technical work (see sub-option 3a in the 
Impact Assessment for the Sustainable Products Initiative). As such measures would be implemented gradually and by product category, the 
extent of the problem and its consequences is expected to remain unchanged for most products. 

Options discarded at an early stage 
Further to the options considered above, for this sub-problem the following options were discarded at an early stage as their added value could 

100 Whereas the Sale of Goods Directive only establishes individual rights in specific cases where non-conformity affects the individual concerned within the legal guarantee period, a specific 
prohibition of failing to provide the legally required software updates would facilitate the public enforcement in order to stop such unfair practices. It would also allow the harmed consumers to 
claim individual remedies where such practices are deemed unfair in accordance with the UCPD.   
101 Whereas several ecodesign product measures introduce requirements on reparability, a ban under consumer law would also allow the harmed consumers to claim individual remedies where 
such practices are deemed unfair in accordance with the UCPD.   

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
not be demonstrated: a general ban of planned/intentional/deliberate obsolescence102, and setting minimum lifetimes per product category. 
Additional details of the content of these discarded options and the reasons for discarding them is provided in Annex 11. 

 5.2.2.2. Sub-problem 2.2: Consumers are faced with the practice of making unclear or not well-substantiated green claims (“Greenwashing”) 

What are the options considered in order to address this sub-problem? 

The options 2.2.A and 2.2B presented below to address this sub-problem are complementary. Option 2.2.C entails a combination of options 2.2A 
and 2.2.B. The purpose of the division into three distinct options is to calculate the impacts of the options as accurately as possible, and thus to 
facilitate a decision regarding the preferred policy option. 

Description of option 

Product scope 

Addressees 

Nature 
intervention 

of 

Ban  of  general/vague  environmental  claims  (e.g.,  “eco-friendly”, 
“green”, “good for the environment”, “friend of nature”, etc.) unless the 
product  or 
trader  obtained  recognised  excellent  environmental 
performance in accordance with applicable EU laws103.  

products 
a 

All 
presenting 
general/vague 
environmental 
claim. 

trader 
Any 
in 
engaged 
such practices 

Amending 
Unfair 
Commercial Practices 
Directive 

Providing  specific  criteria  for  assessing  the  misleading  nature  of  all 
environmental  claims,  such  as:  being  based  on  robust,  independent, 
verifiable and generally recognised evidence which takes into account 
the  latest  scientific  findings;  being  clear  and  unambiguous  regarding 
which aspect(s) of the product or its life cycle the claim refers to; relates 
to aspects that are significant in terms of the product’s environmental 
impact; benefit claimed does not result in an undue transfer of impacts 
on other environmental aspects; not advertising benefits that are legally 
required;  wording,  imagery  and  overall  product  presentation  (i.e. 

products 
any 

All 
presenting 
environmental 
claim. 

trader 
Any 
engaged 
in 
such practices 

Amending 
Unfair 
Commercial Practices 
Directive 

Option 
2.2.A: Ban of 
general 
/vague 
environment
al claims   

Option 
2.2.B: 
Prohibition 
of 
environment
al 
claims 
that  do  not 
a 
fulfil 

102 However, as explained in Annex 11, Option 2.1.B ‘Ban of certain identified practices associated with early obsolescence’ would be able to address certain identified planned obsolescence 
practices.  
103 In practice, such performance can be demonstrated via the EU Ecolabel, or officially recognised ecolabelling schemes in the Member States (art 11 of EU Ecolabel) or in accordance with other 
applicable EU laws, such as the Green Claims Initiative. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
minimum set 
of criteria 

layout, choice of colours, images, pictures, sounds, symbols or labels), 
being  a  truthful  and  accurate  representation  of  the  scale  of  the 
environmental benefit, and not overstating the benefit achieved; related 
to  environmental  achievements  instead  of  aspirations  of  future 
environmental  performance  (future  aspirations  can  be  still  expressed 
under certain conditions); if a trader uses environmental statements in 
its  company  name,  product  name  etc.,  and  the  name  is  used  for 
marketing  purposes,  such  marketing 
the  same 
documentation requirements as those which apply to all environmental 
claims; establishing a link to the additional information on which the 
substantiation  of  the  claim  is  based  (e.g.  method  used,  whether  third 
party verification is being carried out etc.). 

is  subject 

to 

Combination of both options above. 

Option 
2.2.C: 
Option  2.2A 
+ 2.2B 

of 
Combination 
both options above. 

trader 
Any 
engaged 
in 
such practices 

Unfair 
Amending 
Commercial Practices 
Directive 

How do the options interact with other initiatives in preparation  
The problem will be jointly addressed with the upcoming Green Claims Initiative which will help to regulate the market for environmental 
claims on products and organisations when made both by businesses towards consumers and by businesses towards other businesses. This 
initiative would establish methodological requirements on how environmental claims are communicated and substantiated.   

Options discarded at an early stage 
Further to the options considered above, for this sub-problem the following option was discarded at an early stage, as its added value could not be 
demonstrated: a pre-approval of environmental claims via an EU body. Additional details of the content of this option and the reason for 
discarding it is provided in Annex 11. 

5.2.2.3. Sub-problem 2.3: Consumers are faced with the use of sustainability labels and digital information tools that are not always transparent 
and credible 
What are the options considered in order to address this sub-problem? 

The three options presented below are mutually exclusive. 

31 

 
 
Description of option 

Product scope  Addressees 

2.3.A: 
Option 
Development of principles 
the 
promoting 
and 
transparency 
of  
credibility 
sustainability  labels  and 
digital  information  tools 
for voluntary uptake 

Option  2.3.B:  Prohibition 
of sustainability labels and 
digital  information  tools 
not  meeting  minimum 
transparency 
and 
credibility requirements   

Development  via  a  multi-stakeholder  dialogue  of  a  set  of 
the  credibility  and  transparency  of 
principles  to  promote 
sustainability 
towards 
consumers.  The  organisations  running  the  labels  or  information 
tools  could  decide  on  a  voluntary  basis  to  comply  with  the 
principles.   

labels  and  digital 

information 

tools 

the 

Providing  specific  criteria  regarding 
transparency  and 
credibility  to  assess  the  fairness  of  voluntary  sustainability 
labels104 and digital information tools  that are used in marketing 
towards consumers. Based on the existing provisions of the Unfair 
Commercial  Practices  Directive,  this  option  would  cover  “any 
trust mark, quality mark or equivalent”105 that aims to set apart and 
promote  a  product,  a  process  or  a  business  with  reference  to 
environmental,  social  or  ethical  aspects.  It  would  also  cover  all 
digital information tools designed to compare the sustainability of 
products. 

These  criteria  would  comprise  the  following  aspects,  such  as: 
transparency  on  the  identity  of  the  organisation  running  the 
label/information  tool,  its  objectives  and  its  functioning  (e.g. 
decision  making  bodies;  underlying  requirements,  underlying 
methods  used,  procedures  for  monitoring  compliance);  non-
discriminatory accessibility to industry participants; involvement 
of  both  experts  and  broader  group  of  stakeholder  to  validate 
scientific robustness as well as the social and practical relevance 
of  requirements;  existence  of  a  compliance  monitoring,  to  be 

All 
products 
bearing/presen
ting 
a 
sustainability 
label, 
information 
tools  designed 
to compare the 
sustainability 
of products 

digital 

All 
products 
bearing/presen
ting 
a 
sustainability 
label 
as 
marketing  tool 
towards 
consumers, 
digital 
information 
tools 
consumers 
compare 
sustainability 
of products 

for 
to 
the 

Organisations 
running 
sustainability 
labels  or  digital 
information 
tools designed to 
compare 
the 
sustainability  of 
products 

for 

the 

All  traders  that 
use 
such 
sustainability 
labels 
marketing 
products. 
Organisations 
running 
sustainability 
labels  or  digital 
information 
tools 
consumers 
to 
designed 
compare 
the 
sustainability  of 
products. 

for 

Nature 
intervention 

of 

Development 
of best practice 
guidelines 

Amending 
Unfair 
Commercial 
Practices 
Directive 

104 For example, a sustainability label guaranteeing the greenhouse gas neutrality of products through neutralization of emissions with carbon removals will be covered under this option. 
105 Cf. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, point 2. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.3.C: 

Pre-
Option 
approval  of  sustainability 
labels 
digital 
and 
information  tools  via  an 
EU body 

carried out by an independent third party; existence of a complaint 
and  dispute  resolution  mechanisms;  existence  of  procedures  to 
deal with non-compliance.  
The approval of sustainability labels and digital information tools 
for  use  on  the  EU  market  would  be  subject  to  an  ex-ante 
conformity assessment to be performed by an EU body. Approval 
would  require  conformity  with  the  minimum  requirements 
outlined in option 2.3.B. 

New 
provision 

legal 

All 
products 
bearing/presen
ting 
a 
sustainability 
label, 
information 
tools  designed 
to compare the 
sustainability 
of products 

digital 

Organisations 
running 
sustainability 
labels  or  digital 
information 
tools designed to 
compare 
the 
sustainability  of 
products 

How do these options interact with other initiatives in preparation? 
Under the Green Claims Initiative several policy options in relation to possible requirements for environmental claims, including ecolabels are 
being considered. .  As lex generalis, this initiative will provide for general consumer protection rules that will be complemented by other EU-
level technical or sector-specific instruments (lex specialis), when they provide for more detailed rules. The Green Claims Initiative is such a lex 
specialis technical instrument. 

33 

 
 
6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS AND HOW DO THEY COMPARE? 

The 16 impacts against which the policy options are assessed have been selected in line with 
the Better Regulation Guidelines and guided by the problem tree in Figure 1. The assessment 
is predominantly qualitative and complemented, when and where possible, by a quantitative 
assessment,  which  relies  on  estimates  gathered  from  the  literature  review,  stakeholder 
consultations  and  modelling  work.  The  process  for  selecting  the  impacts  and  the 
methodology  underpinning  the  quantitative  assessment  is  explained  in  Annex  4.  The 
appraisal  period  of  2025-2040  was  selected  as  it  was  estimated  that  the  measures  would 
come into force in 2025. The standard appraisal period in which to measure the impacts of 
such policy measures is 15 years, in line with the Better Regulation guidelines. All monetised 
costs and benefits of each measure considered in the assessment are incremental to those 
of the baseline, which is therefore assigned EUR 0 for these impact categories. As many of 
the impacts are not monetisable, it was decided to conduct a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) 
complemented  by  a  (partial)  Cost-Benefit  Analysis.  The  MCA  includes  three  high-level 
assessment  criteria:  Effectiveness,  Efficiency  and  Coherence.  Each  of  the  identified  16 
impacts  is  a  sub-criterion  of  one  of  those  three  high-level  criteria.  Detailed  analyses 
presenting the results of the assessment of each policy option per sub-criteria can be found 
in Annex 8. To carry out the MCA, weights have been assigned to the criteria/sub-criteria. 
Furthermore,  a  sensitivity  analysis  was  carried  out  using  various  weight  combinations, 
including  a  default  scenario  and  a  worst  case  scenario106.  The  full  results  of  the  MCA, 
sensitivity analysis and partial CBA can be found in Annex 9, including additional details 
on the methodology used. 

For ease of reading, the following sub-sections summarise the results of the assessment and 
presents them per stakeholder groups affected. The table below recaps the 16 impacts against 
which the options were assessed and link them with the three-high level assessment criteria 
they fall under as well as the stakeholders they concern directly. The values presented for 
monetised  consumer  welfare,  climate  change  and  costs  are  the  average  of  those  of  the 
scenarios analysed for each measure in the preparatory study. 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Sub-criteria 

of 

Quality 
consumer 
decision making 

Circularity  and 
sustainable 
consumption 
Consumer 
protection 

Stakeholders 
affected 
Consumers 

Sub-criteria 

Monetisable 
consumer 
welfare107 

Stakeholders 
affected 

Sub-criteria 

Consumers 

Coherence 

Stakeholders 
affected 
Application  of 
the 
legal 
framework  and 
coherence 

Environment 

Barriers  to  cross-
border trade 

Businesses 

Consumers 

Climate change 

Environment 

106 In the default scenario, 30 points were assigned to the Effectiveness criterion, 60 points to Efficiency and 10 points to 
coherence. The points were divided equally between the various sub-criteria of each criterion (i.e., each of the 6 sub-criteria 
in the effectiveness section was assigned 1/6 of the 30 points and each of the 9 sub-criteria of the efficiency section was 
assigned 1/9 of 60 points). In the worst case scenario, 100 points to Efficiency, 0 points to Effectiveness and 0 points to 
Coherence,  where  the  points  allocated  to  Efficiency  are  for  60% related  to  the  costs  (and  divided equally  between  the 
various sub-criteria related to costs) and the remaining 40% are divided equally between the various sub-criteria related to 
benefits. 
107 Consumer welfare here considers both consumer surplus (which is based on willingness to pay) and consumer detriment. 

Further details are to be found in Annex 4. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                           
Consumer 
in the market 

trust 

Consumers 

Level-playing 
field 
Application  of 
the 
legal 
framework  

Businesses 

Application  of 
the 
legal 
framework  and 
coherence 

Other 
environmental 
impacts 
Administrative 
burden 
Substantive 
compliance costs 

Environment 

Businesses 

Businesses 

Indirect costs 
SME growth 
Costs 
bodies 

to  public 

Businesses 
Businesses 
Public 
administration 

As explained in section 5.1 above, when considering the baseline for this initiative, as well 
as when calculating the  impacts  of the options  presented below  against this  baseline,  the 
impacts  of  two  other  EU-level  initiatives  under  preparation,  the  upcoming  Green  Claims 
Initiative  and  the  Sustainable  Products  Initiative,  have  not  been  taken  into  account  in  a 
quantitative  way,  as  it  cannot  be  guaranteed  that  each  of  these  other  initiatives  will  be 
adopted  and  will  become  EU  law,  which  is  pending  the  upcoming  ordinary  legislative 
procedure. 

It cannot therefore be excluded that, pending the implementation of some of the measures 
considered  in  these  other  initiatives  currently  being  prepared  in  parallel,  the  impacts 
calculated below might be subject to change. 

However, to the extent that the options considered in this Impact Assessment overlap with 
the preferred policy options of these two other initiatives, this has been taken into account 
in a qualitative way in the description of the options presented in Section 5.1 above, as well 
as in the discussion of the proportionality of the preferred options in Section 7 below. 

6.1. 

Problem  1:  Consumers  lack  reliable  information  at  the  point  of  sale  to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices 

6.1.1.  Sub-Problem 1.2: Lack of reliable information about products’ lifespan 

Option  1.2.A:  Obligation 
inform  consumers  about 
expected lifespan of goods 

to 
the 

to 
Option  1.2.B:  Obligation 
inform consumers of the existence 
(or  absence)  of  a  producer’s 
commercial 
for 
durability 

guarantee 

Option  1.2.C:  Option  1.2.B  + 
Obligation  to  inform  consumers 
on the period of time during which 
free  software  updates  will  be 
provided 

Impacts of the policy options 
Impacts on consumers: 
As  explained  in  Annex  12,  consumers  are  interested  in  having  information  about  the 
lifespan/durability of products and are even willing to pay for it. However, the obligation to 
inform consumers about the expected lifespan of goods, as considered in option 1.2.A 
will  not  improve  the  quality  of  decision-making  for  consumers.  This  is  because  the 
reliability of the information provided under this option (and the comparability it would 
allow between products) will depend on the methodology used by companies to assess 
such an expected lifetime, which are likely to vary depending on the companies, therefore 
leading to diverging assessments within a given product category. It is also technically very 
challenging to estimate the lifespan of products, and the methods, indicators and techniques 

35 

 
 
 
used will vary significantly from product category to product category. Depending on the 
level of effectiveness of the option in contributing to consumers purchasing alternatives that 
last one year longer than in the baseline, the monetisable consumer welfare is estimated 
to be around EUR 850 - 1 110 million for the period 2025-2040 if the information is 
reliable (or EUR 57 – 74 million per year). It could, however, become negative if each 
company decides on its own methodology. The availability of a commercial guarantee of 
durability signals that the respective product is of high-quality and expected to last longer. 
The provision of information about the existence and length of the commercial guarantee 
of durability as considered in option 1.2.B would avoid the technical challenge posed by 
the previous option of needing to assess the expected lifespan of a product, while serving as 
an excellent proxy for consumers to identify which products are expected to have a longer 
lifespan.  This  would  avoid  the  technical  and  methodological  challenges  posed  by  the 
previous option of needing to assess the expected lifespan of a product. Simulations carried 
out for the purpose of this Impact Assessment show that, in the medium term, the share of 
products covered by commercial guarantees and the duration of the commercial guarantees 
will  increase  as  a  result  of  the  option.  The  option  is  estimated  to  bring  an  increase  of 
monetisable consumer welfare of EUR 1 775 – 2 465 million for the period 2025-2040 (or 
EUR 118 – 164 million per year). Option 1.2.C, namely option 1.2.B plus the obligation 
to  inform  consumers  on  the  period  of  time  during  which  free  software  updates  will  be 
provided, would (in addition to the impacts described for option 1.2.B) allow consumers to 
identify  which  products  offer  better  conditions  in  terms  of  availability  of  software 
updates  and 
their  decision-making  process.  This  would  be 
complementary to the seller’s obligations under the Sale of Goods Directive to supply the 
consumer with software updates for a period of time which the consumer might reasonably 
expect so as to ensure that the product remains in conformity. Under this option, consumers 
will  experience  a  “gain”,  which  according  to  the  partial  calculations  carried  out  by  the 
supporting study is likely to be around EUR 2 355 – 3 555 million for the period 2025-
2040 (or EUR 157 – 237 million per year). To address possible information overload, this 
information  on  software  updates  should  be  only  provided  in  absence  of  a  commercial 
guarantee of durability (which will cover software updates), unless the software updates are 
provided for a longer time than the commercial guarantee of durability. 

therefore 

improve 

Impacts on businesses: 
Option  1.2.A  will  have  a  significant  administrative  burden  on  businesses,  related  to  the 
production of new data to be able to provide information on the expected lifespan of products 
and, to a lesser extent, the tagging of the product. Business organisations have pointed to the 
high cost of this  obligation during the consultation  phase. While the obligation is  on the 
seller, it is assumed that the seller will request this information from manufacturers. These 
extra costs are estimated to amount to EUR 2 435 – 2 680 million for the period 2025-2040 
(or EUR 162 – 179 million per year). Option 1.2.B will impose relatively high one-off 
administrative burdens on businesses, primarily sellers, mostly related to adapting systems, 
procedures and existing data (e.g. updating websites) and to replacing price tags in physical 
shops (e.g. on shelves). However, it will have low recurrent administrative burdens as 
the  activities  necessary  to  provide  the  information  would  have  been  carried  out  in  a 
business-as-usual scenario. These extra costs are estimated to be between EUR 890 – 1 065 
million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 59 – 71 million per year) and would fall largely 
on sellers, as they are mainly linked to the display of the required information. These costs 
are expected to be compensated by an increase in the price of products offering a commercial 
guarantee (as consumers are willing to pay for longer commercial guarantees) and possibly 
by an increase in demand of those same products. This option will systematically increase 

36 

 
 
transparency regarding the commercial guarantee offered for goods and penalise companies 
that do not offer or offer less attractive commercial guarantees, so contributing to a level 
playing  field.  Option  1.2.C  is  expected  to  have some  further  positive  impact  on  a  level-
playing field as it will increase transparency about commitments regarding software update 
and allow consumers to compare products based on these commitments. However, the option 
will have costs for manufacturers as they need to decide on the period during which they 
will provide software updates, and communicate them to sellers. Sellers will then have costs 
to ensure that consumers receive this information at the point of sale. These extra costs are 
estimated to be between EUR 990 – 1 170 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 66 – 
78 million per year). 

Impacts on public administrations: 
Enforcement costs for option 1.2.A are estimated to be between EUR 86 - 96 million for 
the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 5.7 – 6.4 million per year). These costs will be generated 
by the time and expertise needed to check the information provided by businesses,  which 
will  be  particularly  challenging  and  time-consuming  in  the  absence  of  common 
standards/methodologies.  Based on interviews with national  enforcement  authorities, it is 
assumed that Member States (possibly with the exception of France) would have to create a 
dedicated team to enforce this measure. The size of the team would be around 5 experts. 
25% of their time would be dedicated to monitoring the compliance with the measure, 50% 
would be to carry out inspections and 25% with handling complaints. It is estimated that the 
number of complaints that can be handled given the available resources will be around 700 
per  year  per  Member  State  (average  as  some  will  handle  significantly  more  and  others 
significantly less). It is assumed that about 1% will be dealt with through Alternative Dispute 
Resolution bodies and 0.1% in courts. The costs of an ADR body adjudication and of a court 
adjudication  were  obtained  from  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  review  of  the  Consumer 
Protection  Cooperation  Regulation  and  supporting  study108.  140h  are  assumed  for 
familiarisation with the measure and adjustment of internal procedures to start enforcing the 
measure. 16 employees would receive a 7h training. It is also assumed that there will be a 
yearly  action  per  Member  State,  which  will  amount  to  EUR  40,000  (based  on  market 
research). Enforcement costs for option 1.2.B are estimated to be of EUR 15 - 27 million 
for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 1 – 1.8 million per year). Based on interviews with 
national enforcement authorities, in the context of the supporting study, option 1.2.B would 
not require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce CRD and 
SGD.  It  is  therefore  assumed  that  the  measure  will  require  an  additional  Full  Time 
Equivalent,  with  its  time  divided  equally  between  monitoring,  inspecting,  and  handling 
complaints. 70h are assumed for familiarisation with the measure and adjustment of internal 
procedures to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees would receive a 7h training. It is 
also assumed that there will be a yearly action per Member State, which will amount to EUR 
40,000 (based on market research). The other unit costs are assumed to be the same as in the 
previous measure. The costs of option 1.2.C for public administrations are expected to be 
the same as for option 1.2.B. 

Impacts on the environment: 

108 European Commission, Support study for the impact assessment on the review of the CPC Regulation 2006/2004/EC: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cpc_review_support_study_1_en.pdf 
Commission, 
SWD(2016) 164 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0164&from=EN. 

European 

and 

37 

 
 
 
                                                           
Due to the limitation of option 1.2.A mentioned above, consumers are unlikely to purchase 
products  that  effectively  last  longer  and  so  the  impact  on  the  environment  is  considered 
negligible. As consumers will buy products that last longer, option 1.2.B will have a positive 
impact on the amount of CO2 emitted during production estimated at  0.3 – 0.4 mega 
tons (EUR 6 - 8 million), for the period 2025-2040 (or 0.02 – 0.03 mega tons per year, 
valued  at  EUR  0.4  –  0.5  million).  In  addition,  it  will  lead  to  less  water  used,  fewer 
particulate matter and polluting agents released and a reduction of the amount of waste, and 
will support the transition towards a more circular and sustainable economy. In addition to 
the impacts of option 1.2.B, due to the implementation of option 1.2.C, consumers will be 
able to keep products for a longer time compared to a situation where the information on 
software updates had not been available. This is expected to lead to a reduction of produced 
units and thus of CO2 emissions estimated to be around 0.4 – 0.7 mega tons (EUR 8 - 13 
million) during production for the period 2025-2040 (or 0.03 – 0.05 mega tons per year, 
valued at EUR 0.5 – 0.9 million). 

Coherence and applicability of the legal framework: 
Overall, option 1.2.A will not facilitate the application of the legal framework as it relies 
on an assessment carried out by businesses according to the methodology of their choice, 
and  thus  difficult  to  verify  for  enforcers.  Option  1.2.B  is  coherent  with  the  legal 
framework  and  usefully  complements  the  provisions  set  out  in  the  Sale  of  Goods 
Directive  and  Consumer  Rights  Directive  as  it  will  ensure  clearer  information  to 
consumers  at  the  point  of  sale  on  the  length  of  the  producer’s  commercial  guarantees  of 
durability for all goods in scope. For the same reason, the option will also ensure a better 
and coherent application of the EU legal consumer framework (in particular the SGD and 
CRD) as it specifies that information on the existence or absence of a producer’s commercial 
guarantee of durability should be provided to consumers. In addition to option 1.2.B, option 
1.2.C would  ensure further coherence with SGD, as it would stipulate the number of years 
during which manufacturers commit to providing software updates, without prejudice to the 
statutory SGD right on software updates if the ‘reasonably expected period’ for updates turns 
out to be longer.  

How do the options compare?  
The  results  of  the  multi-criteria  analysis  (MCA)109  for  the  default  scenario  (presented  in 
Annex  9,  section  2.1)  shows  that  the  ranking  of  options  with  the  highest  score  is  the 
following:  first  option  1.2.C  (information  on  commercial  guarantee  and  information  on 
software updates), followed by option 1.2.B (information on commercial guarantee only), 
then the baseline and finally option 1.2.A (information on expected lifespan). The sensitivity 
analysis suggests that this ranking of options is consistently the one obtaining the highest-
score for the various alternative scenarios considered.   

When  looking  at  the  proportionality  of  the  three  options  (efficiency  criterion),  the  MCA 
shows  that  the  tangible  and  intangible  costs  of  options  1.2.B  and  1.2.C,  including  on 
businesses  and  public  administrations,,  are  outweighed  by  their  expected  benefits  to 
consumers and the environment(even for the worst-case scenario). In the eight scenarios that 
we simulated for the options, options 1.2.B and 1.2.C had a net positive outcome for society 
compared  to  the  baseline.  The  results  of  the  partial  cost-benefit  analysis  (which  only 
considers tangible and monetisable impacts) also suggest that the benefits of option 1.2.C 

109 The summary of the performance of the options against the criteria is summarised in  Annex 8, and has been used to 
perform the MCA. It covers both a qualitative and quantitative assessment. The MCA results are confirmed by a sensitivity 
analysis for all scenarios considered. See Annex 9 for its results.   

38 

 
 
                                                           
and  option  1.2.B  are  higher  than  their  expected  costs,  with  option  1.2.C  presenting  the 
highest net present value of the three options considered. The cost and lack of harmonised 
methodology to assess products’ lifespan represent the main weak points of option 1.2.A, 
undermining  its  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  Its  effectiveness  would  improve  if  product-
specific  rules  imposed  on  the  manufacturer  are  established  that  define  the  method  and 
assumptions to calculate the expected durability of products. However, this would not be 
suitable  within  the  scope  of  a  horizontal  consumer  law  instrument,  with  information 
obligations for the seller.  

6.1.2.  Sub-Problem  1.3:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  products’ 

reparability 

1.3.A: 
Option 
of 
Provision 
updated, 
user-
friendly  repair  and 
user manuals 

1.3.B: 
Option 
of 
Provision 
information 
about 
how  long  and  which 
are 
parts 
spare 
available 

1.3.C: 
Option 
of 
Provision 
information 
on 
availability of repair 
services 

Option  1.3.D: 
Reparability 
Scoring Index 

1.3.E: 
Option 
Provision of Repair 
Scoring  Index,  or 
other relevant repair 
information  on  a 
where 
applicable/available 
basis 

Impacts of the policy options 
Impacts on consumers: 
The  provision  of  updated,  user-friendly  repair  and  user  manuals  as  considered  under 
option 1.3.A will remove some barriers to self-repair and, to some extent, better-informed 
purchasing  decisions,  giving  a  sense  of  empowerment  to  consumers.  By  providing 
consumers with repair manuals, consumers are expected to experience a “gain” equal to the 
value of the additional lifespan gained as a result of the repair, which is estimated to amount 
to EUR 435 – 760 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 29 – 51 million per year). 
The provision  of  information about how long and which spare parts are available  as 
considered  under  option  1.3.B  will  help  consumers  identify  which  products  offer  better 
conditions in terms of availability of spare parts and therefore improve their decision-making 
process.  Similarly  as  under  the  previous  option,  consumers  are  expected  to  experience  a 
“gain” equal to the value of the additional lifespan gained as a result of the repair, which is 
estimated to amount to EUR 1 220 – 2 970 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 81 
– 198 million per year). Option 1.3.C, namely the provision of information on availability 
of repair services, will have less impact on consumers who do not live near the place where 
the product was purchased. Although producers will be able to provide information on repair 
services in other regions and Member States with which they are affiliated or associated, 
sellers  will  be  less  likely  to  have  available  information  on  the  existence  of  local  or 
independent repair services in other regions. Furthermore, the lack of effectiveness of the 
option in providing complete information is expected to lead only to a minor increase of the 
consumer surplus, which is estimated to amount to EUR 115 - 250 million in the period 
2025-2040 (or EUR 8 – 17 million per year). The provision of a Reparability Scoring 
Index, as considered under option 1.3.D, is expected to have a limited impact on the quality 
of consumer decisions. A repair score allows for a wide range of reparability aspects to be 
covered effectively, without leading to information overload. However this option requires 
that all manufacturers implement the JRC general repair score methodology in exactly 
the same way to guarantee a reliable comparability between products. This could be difficult 
in reality given the heterogeneous nature of products. Nevertheless, this option is expected 
to lead to an increase in the consumer surplus, which is estimated to amount to EUR 455 – 

39 

 
 
995 million in the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 30 – 66 million per year). Option 1.3.E, 
namely the provision of a Repair Scoring Index, or other relevant repair information on 
a  where  applicable/available  basis  is  expected  to  increase  the  quality  of  consumer 
decision-making as it will increase the likelihood that high quality information is provided 
to the consumer at the point of sale without leading to information overload. Furthermore it 
avoids the drawback of  option 1.3.D which relies on all manufacturers implementing the 
JRC general repair score methodology in exactly the same way, in that it provides for the 
provision at the point of sale of those repair scores which are applicable in the case of the 
product and sector in question. It also has the benefit that the information can be provided 
on  a  wider  range  of  products  then  the  other  options,  as  they  would  provide  repair 
information on a defined, hence more narrow, product scope (i.e. energy-using goods only), 
while  manufacturers  may  be  potentially  interested/able  to  provide  repair  information  for 
other product categories as well. Finally, under option 1.3.E the fact that manufacturers who 
provide  repair  information  on  their  products  can  be  certain  that  such  information  will  be 
presented to consumers at the point of sale, meaning that manufacturers will be incentivised 
to  compete  to  provide  the  best  repair  conditions  on  their  products.  This  increased 
competition is expected to provide further benefits for consumers. 

Impacts on businesses: 
Under option 1.3.A manufacturers will have to produce repair manuals for each model. It is 
estimated that the minimum cost of producing a repair manual (for users) is between EUR 
4 000 and 6 000. In the case of a digital solution, these extra costs are estimated to amount 
to EUR 785 – 935 million in the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 52 – 62 million per year), of 
which about 12% for SMEs. In the case of a paper version, the extra costs are much higher. 
Administrative burdens under option 1.3.B mean that manufacturers will have to provide 
the necessary information to sellers (which include the costs of identifying which spare parts 
will be available and for how long) and that sellers will have to ensure that consumers receive 
this  information  (which  could  entail  merely  providing  a  link  to  the  website  of  the 
manufacturer). The total extra costs are estimated to be EUR 1 685 – 1 715 million in the 
period 2025-2040 (or EUR 112 – 114 million per year). Option 1.3.C involves the need 
to maintain an updated list of repair services available and to ensure that consumers have 
access to that list. These extra costs are estimated to be EUR 3 120 – 3 380 million for 
the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 208 – 225 million per year). The administrative burden of 
option 1.3.D involves the need to assess the reparability of products and inform consumers 
of that assessment. These total extra cost are estimated to be EUR 4 180 – 4 360 million for 
the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 279 – 290 million per year). Given the substantial amount 
of  resources  that  the  assessment  will  require,  in  particular  in  the  absence  of  detailed 
guidance/methodology for a given product category, it is expected that the option will have 
a negative impact on SME growth. The costs of option 1.3.E for businesses are expected to 
be much lower, as sellers will have to provide only such information as manufacturers make 
it  available.  There  will  be  no  specific  obligation  for  manufacturers  to  provide  such 
information on their products. The administrative costs are expected to be EUR 222 million 
in the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 15 million per year). 

Impacts on public administrations: 
Enforcement costs for option 1.3.A and for option 1.3.B are limited and each estimated to 
amount to EUR 16-21 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 1 – 1.4 million per year). 
Based on interviews with national enforcement authorities, for both options, it is assumed 
that the measure would not require significant additional resources on top of the existing 
ones  to  enforce  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive  and  the  Sale  of  Goods  Directive.  It  is 

40 

 
 
 
therefore assumed that the measure will require one additional Full Time Equivalent (per 
Member State), with its time divided equally between monitoring, inspecting, and handling 
complaints. 70h are assumed for familiarization with the measure and adjustment of internal 
procedures to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees would receive a 7h training. It is 
also  assumed  that  there  will  be  a  yearly  action  per  Member  State,  which  will  cost  EUR 
20,000 (based on market research). Enforcement costs for option 1.3.C are also limited and 
estimated to be of EUR 8-13 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 0.5 – 0.9 million 
per year). In each case these costs are generated by the time needed to check whether the 
information  is  provided.  Based  on  interviews  with  national  enforcement  authorities,  it  is 
assumed that the measure would not require significant additional resources on top of the 
existing ones to enforce the Consumer Rights Directive and Sale of Goods Directive. It is 
therefore assumed that the measure will require an additional 0.5 Full Time Equivalent (per 
Member State), with its time divided equally between monitoring, inspecting, and handling 
complaints. 70h are assumed for familiarization with the measure and adjustment of internal 
procedures to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees would receive a 7h training. It is 
also assumed that there might be a yearly action per Member State, which will cost EUR 
20,000 (based on market research). Enforcement costs of option 1.3.D are estimated to be 
of EUR 32 - 37 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 2.1 – 2.5 million per year), 
generated by the time needed to check whether the information is provided and accurate. 
Based on interviews with national enforcement authorities, it is assumed that the measure 
would require some additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce the Consumer 
Rights Directive and Sale of Goods Directive. It is therefore assumed that the measure will 
require two additional Full Time Equivalents (per Member State), with their time divided 
equally  between  monitoring,  inspecting,  and  handling  complaints.  70h  are  assumed  for 
familiarization with the measure and adjustment of internal procedures to start enforcing the 
measure. 16 employees would receive a 7h training. It is also assumed that there might be a 
yearly action per Member State, which will cost EUR 20,000 (based on market research). 
Option  1.3.E  is  expected  to  entail  minimal  enforcement  costs,  estimated  at  EUR  0.12 
million in the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 0.008 million per year), generated by the time 
needed to check whether the seller has provided such information at the point of sale when 
made  available  by  the  manufacturer.    It  is  assumed  that  this  option  would  not  require 
additional resources from enforcement authorities other than the ones related to the one-off 
costs of familiarisation and training. 70h are assumed for familiarisation with the option and 
adjusting the internal procedures to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees would receive 
a 7h training. 

Impacts on the environment: 
Under option 1.3.A some consumers will be able to maintain their goods in a better way 
and/or to repair some goods that would have been replaced in the absence of the manuals. 
Consequently, the repaired products will have a longer lifespan than they would have had in 
the baseline. The option will therefore lead to a reduction of produced units and thus of CO2 
emissions  estimated  at  0.9  –  1.6  mega  tons  (valued  at  EUR  19  -  33  million)  during 
production for the period 2025-2040 (or 0.06 – 0.11 mega tons per year, valued at EUR 
1.3 – 2.2). Under option 1.3.B some consumers will be able to repair some goods that would 
have  been  replaced  in  the  absence  of  the  information  on  spare  parts.  Consequently,  the 
repaired products will have a longer lifespan than they would have had in the baseline and 
will  therefore  lead  to  a  reduction  of  CO2  emissions  estimated  at  1.9  –  3.3  mega  tons 
(valued at EUR 39-68 million) for the period 2025-2040 (or 0.13 – 0.22 mega tons per 
year, valued at EUR 2.6 – 4.5 million). Under option 1.3.C, some consumers will be able 

41 

 
 
 
to  repair some  goods that  would have been replaced in  the absence of information  about 
repair services available which will lead to a reduction of CO2 emissions estimated at 0.04- 
0.08 mega tons (valued at EUR 1 – 2 million) for the period 2025-2040 (or 0.002 – 0.005 
mega  tons  per  year,  valued  at  EUR  0.07  –  0.13  million).  Under  option  1.3.D,  some 
consumers will opt for goods that can be more easily repaired, which will lead to a reduction 
of  CO2  emissions  estimated  at  between  1.2  –  2.2  mega  tons  (valued  at  EUR  26  -  45 
million) in the period 2025-2040 (or 0.08 – 0.15 mega tons per year, valued at EUR 1.7 – 
3 million). Due to the implementation of option 1.3.E, some consumers will opt for goods 
that  can  be  more  easily  repaired.  Consequently,  the  repaired  products  will  have  a  longer 
lifespan than they would have had in the baseline. For this reason we can conclude that this 
option will also have a positive impact on the environment. As the option will not require 
any physical paper repair manuals to be provided at the point of sale we can estimate that it 
will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions which is at least greater than that of option 1.3.A 
in the period 2025-2040.  

Coherence and applicability of the legal framework: 
For option 1.3.A no issue of coherence and applicability has been identified. As already the 
case for some product categories, future Ecodesign/SPI requirements may provide further 
specifications  concerning  what  the  specific  ‘repair  and  user  manual’  should  include  for 
new/other  product  categories.  As  option  1.3.B  focuses  on  providing  consumers  with 
information on the availability of spare parts at the point of sale, the option is coherent and 
complements Eco-design and future SPI product rules that may further specify how long and 
which  spare  parts  should  be  kept  available  for  a  given  product  category  for  a  minimum 
period of time. Under option 1.3.C and option 1.3.D it is expected to be challenging for 
consumer enforcement authorities to assess whether the information provided by retailers is 
comprehensive and reliable. Option 1.3.E is fully coherent with the legal framework, in that 
it provides for repair information to be made available at the point of sale in precisely those 
cases where the existing legal framework already requires such information to be provided 
by manufacturers or where manufacturers chose to provide such information voluntarily. It 
is also complementary to potential future Ecodesign/SPI requirements which may provide 
for further specifications concerning what repair information should be provided for specific 
product categories, possibly also in the form a Digital Product Passport. Whereas future SPI 
measure  might  thus  specify  how  reparability  information  should  be  made  available  to 
consumers for specific products, option 1.3.E would require such information to be provided 
at the point of sale in a clear and legible form for an open range of products. 

How do the options compare?  
The results of the MCA and sensitivity analysis110 (presented in Annex 9, section 2.2) shows 
that option 1.3.E (provision of Repair Scoring Index, or other relevant repair information on 
a where applicable/available basis) ranks either highest or joint highest in all scenarios. In a 
number of scenarios, including the default scenario, option 1.3.E ranks the highest, followed 
by  option  1.3.B  (provision  of  information  about  how  long  and  which  spare  parts  are 
available),  the  baseline,  option  1.3.D  (provision  of  a  Reparability  Scoring  Index),  option 
1.3.A (provision of updated, user-friendly repair and user manuals) and 1.3.C (provision of 
information on availability of repair services) in that order. In a number of other scenarios, 
option 1.3.E ranks joint highest with option 1.3.B. 

110 The summary of the performance of the options against the criteria is summarised in Annex 8, and has been used to 
perform the MCA. It covers both a qualitative and quantitative assessment. The MCA results are confirmed by a sensitivity 
analysis for half of the scenarios tested. See supporting study for the results of the sensitivity analysis.   

42 

 
 
                                                           
When looking at the proportionality of the options, the MCA shows that the tangible and 
intangible  costs  of  options  1.3.B,  1.3.D,  and  1.3.E,  including  on  businesses  and  public 
administrations,  are  outweighed  by  their  expected  benefits  to  consumers  and  the 
environment (even in the worst case scenario).  

6.2. 

Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to the 
sustainability of products 

6.2.1.  Sub-Problem 2.1: Consumers are sold products that do not last as long 

as they should and consumers expect 

Option  2.1.A:  Collection  of  evidence  on  early 
failures  of  products  identified  by  authorised 
entities 

Option  2.1.B:  Ban  of  certain  identified  practices 
associated with early obsolescence 

Impacts of the policy options 
Impacts on consumers: 
The collection of evidence on early failures of products identified by authorised entities, 
as considered under option 2.1.A, is expected to help consumers become aware of possible 
problems  with  certain  product  models  and  therefore  take  better  informed  decisions.  The 
effectiveness of the option might be reduced by the fact that the consumers will have to 
actively  look  for  the  information  on  the  websites  of  the  authorised  entities  (e.g. 
consumer  organisations).  The  share  of  products  effectively  covered  will  depend  on 
voluntary actions and evidence collected by those entities, so the sample of products may 
not be fully balanced. This option is expected to lead to an increase of the consumer surplus, 
which is estimated to amount to EUR 100-180 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 
7 – 12 million per year) as consumers are expected to avoid buying certain product models 
identified  with  early  failures.  Option  2.1.B,  namely  the  banning  of  certain  identified 
practices  associated  with  early  obsolescence,  contributes  to  protecting  consumers  by 
removing products from the market that would fail earlier than consumers would expect as 
a result of certain  identified practices prohibited by the option.  It  will increase  consumer 
protection, notably of vulnerable consumers111, as well as consumer trust in the market as it 
prevents  situations  where  consumers  would  be  misled  by  traders.  A  share  (5%-20% 
depending  on  the  product  type)  of  products  fails  significantly  earlier  than  could  be 
reasonably  expected,  which  leads  to  personal  consumer  detriment.  This  option  is  thus 
expected to lead to an increase in the consumer surplus, which is estimated to amount to 
EUR 1 800 – 2 250 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 120 – 150 million per year) 
based on failures occurring in the first 60% of the product lifespan). 

Impacts on businesses: 
Option 2.1.A is expected to have an impact on the level playing field between companies. 
However, issues related to possible unbalanced product coverage might limit this impact. 
Since the option does not oblige third parties to collect the information but only to make it 
available to consumers, these third parties will have costs in relation to the updating of 
their websites. Those costs are estimated at EUR 4-5 million for the period 2025-2040 (or 
EUR  0.26  –  0.33  million  per  year).  However  they  may  compensate  for  it  through 

111 Vulnerable consumers are likely to be more susceptible to aggressive manipulative techniques that lure them into 
buying products that fail early: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/690619/EPRS_BRI(2021)690619_EN.pdf   

43 

 
 
                                                           
membership fees or possible funding made available to them by Member States. When such 
information  is  made  public  concerning  a  given  model,  sellers  may  see  a  decrease  in  the 
demand of the specific model for sale. Option 2.1.B is expected to contribute very positively 
to a level playing field. This is because, in the baseline, companies engaging in the banned 
practices have lower costs than their competitors and charge higher prices to consumers (than 
they  would  if  consumers  knew  about  the  real  expected  lifespan  of  the  products)  because 
consumers assume that the products  would have  an expected lifespan not much different 
from the average. It will also reduce barriers to cross-border trade as some Member States 
start to ban obsolescence practices, albeit in different ways. Rough estimations show that the 
option would lead to extra costs for businesses amounting to EUR 1 190 – 1 630 million 
for the period 2025-2040 (or  EUR 79  – 109  million per year), falling mainly  on large 
manufacturers.  These  costs  include  those  related  to  the  familiarisation  with  the  measures 
(applicable to all businesses) as well as those linked to the need to review internal processes 
for these companies using practices targeted by the option.   

Impacts on public administrations: 
Enforcement of option 2.1.A could be challenging due to the voluntary nature of collecting 
information, which means that enforcement authorities will have difficulties in identifying 
situations where information is available but not disclosed. The costs are estimated to be of 
EUR 7-8 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 0.46 – 0.53 million per year). Based 
on interviews with national enforcement authorities, it is assumed that the measure would 
not require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce the Unfair 
Commercial Practices Directive. It is therefore assumed that the measure will require one 
Full Time Equivalent (per Member State), with 50% of their time devoted to surveillance, 
25% devoted to inspections and 25% to handling complaints. 35h are assumed for one person 
getting  familiarized  with  the  measure  and  the  adjustment  of  internal  procedures  to  start 
enforcing  the  measure.  16  employees  would  receive  a  3.5h  training.  The  costs  of 
adjudication are expected to be in line with the unit costs presented in the previous measures. 
Enforcement  of option 2.1.B is  expected to  result in the creation or  strengthening  of the 
capacity, including technical capacity, responsible for addressing obsolescence practices in 
each Member State. The enforcement costs are estimated at EUR 103-107 million  for the 
period 2025-2040 (or EUR 6.9 – 7.1 million per year). Based on interviews with national 
enforcement authorities, it is assumed that the measure would require significant additional 
resources on top of the existing ones to enforce the Unfair Commercial Practice Directive 
(except  for  one  Member  States  –  France).  It  is  therefore  assumed  that  the  measure  will 
require a team of seven additional Full Time Equivalent (per Member State), with 42% of 
their  time  devoted  to  surveillance,  42%  devoted  to  inspections  and  16%  to  handling 
complaints. 70h are assumed for three people getting familiarized with the measure and the 
adjustment  of  internal  procedures  to  start  enforcing  the  measure.  16  employees  would 
receive a 14h training. The costs of adjudication ate expected to be significantly higher than 
average  given  the  complexity  of  the  matter.  It  is  assumed  that  one  ADR  case  will  costs 
around EUR 7,756 and a court case around five times the average.  

Impacts on the environment: 
Due to the implementation of option 2.1.A, some consumers will opt for goods that will last 
longer. The option will lead to a reduction of produced units and thus of  CO2 emissions 
estimated at 0.2 – 0.4 mega tons (valued at EUR 4 - 8 million) during production for the 
period 2025-2040 (or 0.01 – 0.03 mega tons per year, valued at EUR 0.3 – 0.5 million). 
Due to the implementation of option 2.1.B, some consumers will opt for goods that will last 
longer. The option will lead to a reduction of produced units and thus of  CO2 emissions 

44 

 
 
  
estimated at 3.5 – 4.3 mega tons (valued at EUR 72 - 90 million) during production for 
the period 2025 – 2040 (or 0.2 – 0.3 mega tons per year, valued at EUR 5 – 6 million).  

Coherence and applicability of the legislation: 
No issue of coherence was identified for option 2.1.A. Option 2.1.B is expected to have a 
significant  impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal 
consumer  framework  through  adding  more  specific  and  stronger  consumer  protection 
rules. 

How do the options compare?  
The results of the MCA and the sensitivity analysis112 (presented in Annex 9, section 2.3) 
shows that option 2.1.B (Ban of certain identified practices associated to early obsolescence) 
ranks  the  highest,  followed  by  option  2.1A    (Information  on  early  failures  of  products 
identified by authorised entities) and then the baseline. 

When looking at the proportionality of the two options, the MCA shows that the tangible 
and intangible costs of options 2.1A and 2.1.B are outweighed by their expected benefits 
(even for the worst-case scenario). The results of the partial cost-benefit analysis (which only 
considers tangible and monetisable impacts) also suggest that the benefits of options 2.1.A 
and 2.1.B are higher than their expected costs, with option 2.1.B presenting the highest net 
present value. 

6.2.2.  Sub-problem  2.2:  Consumers  are  faced  with  the  practice  of  making 
claims 

not  well-substantiated 

environmental 

unclear 
(“Greenwashing”) 

or 

Option  2.2.A:  Ban  of  general 
/vague environmental claims   

Option  2.2.B:  Prohibition  of 
environmental  claims  that  do  not 
fulfil a minimum set of criteria 

Option  2.2.C:  Option  2.2A  + 
2.2B 

Impacts of the policy options 
Impacts on consumers: 
Under  option  2.2.A,  general/vague  statements  on  the  environmental  performance  of 
products or traders (such as “good for the environment”, “friend of nature”, etc.) would be 
forbidden unless the product or trader is considered to have an “environmentally excellent 
performance” in accordance with EU applicable laws (e.g. presence of the EU Ecolabel). 
Banning  such  vague  statements  will  contribute  to  consumers  taking  better  informed 
decisions  and  will  also  give  more  prominence  to  those  products  that  are  truly 
“environmentally excellent”. The option will have a positive impact on consumer trust, as 
highlighted  by  stakeholders  from  all  groups.  The  option  is  expected  to  lead  to  consumer 
welfare estimated at EUR 2 155 – 3 960 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 144 – 
264 million per year). Option 2.2.B, namely a prohibition of environmental claims that 
do not fulfil a minimum set of criteria, would particularly provide for general rules for the 
claims  not  yet  covered  under  the  Green  Claims  Initiative.  By  specifying  minimum 
criteria  for  assessing  the  fairness  of  other  claims,  this  option  will  further  contribute  to 

112 The summary of the performance of the options against the criteria is summarised in Annex 8, and has been used to 
perform  the  MCA.  It  covers  both  a  qualitative  and  quantitative  assessment.  The  MCA  results  are  confirmed  by  the 
sensitivity analysis. See Annex 9 for its results.   

45 

 
 
  
                                                           
improving the reliability of the information provided to consumers and, therefore, will have 
a positive impact on the decision making of consumers. When compared to this alternative 
baseline, this impact is estimated to amount to an increase in consumer welfare of between 
EUR 1580 – 2 910 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 105 – 194 million per year). 
Option 2.2.C will entail a combination of the impacts described for option 2.2.A and option 
2.2.B. The option is thus expected to lead to an increase in the consumer surplus, which is 
estimated to amount to EUR 3 735 – 6 870 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 249 
– 458 million per year). 

Impacts on businesses: 
The impact of option 2.2A on a level playing field is expected to be positive as products 
with  unsubstantiated  vague  claims  will  no  longer  compete  with  products  that  are  indeed 
environmentally excellent. The option is expected to entail compliance costs for businesses 
at EUR 2 900 – 3 150 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 193 – 210 million per 
year), linked to familiarisation with the option and the removal of unfounded claims for the 
small share of products in stock before the approval of the measure. The impact of option 
2.2.B on the level playing field is expected to be positive, as products with unsubstantiated 
claims will no longer compete with products containing green claims complying with the 
minimum set of criteria.  The option is expected to entail compliance costs of EUR 2 900 – 
3 150 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 193 – 210 million per year), of which 
about  99%  will  be  for  SMEs.  Option  2.2.C  will  entail  a  combination  of  the  impacts 
described for option 2.2.A and option 2.2.B. There are certain economies of scales when 
the  two  options  are  combined,  related,  for  example,  to  the  fact  that  the  removal  of  the 
relevant claims for the small share of products in stock for which each of the two types of 
claims  are  made  (vague  claims  which  are  not  based  on  “environmentally  excellent 
performance” in accordance with applicable EU laws + environmental claims that do not 
fulfil  a  minimum  set  of  criteria)  can  be  conducted  simultaneously.  The  substantive 
compliance costs are estimated at EUR 3 300 – 3 500 million for the period 2025-2040 (or 
EUR 220 – 233 million per year). The costs of these options are significantly higher than 
that of the options assessed related to Problem 1 (Consumers lack reliable information at the 
point of sale to make environmentally sustainable consumption choices) and Sub-Problem 
2.1  (Consumers  are  sold  products  that  do  not  last  as  long  as  they  should  and  consumers 
expect) because they apply to a significantly higher number of businesses (about 40 times 
more). 

Impacts on public administrations: 
Option 2.2.A facilitates enforcement against misleading claims as it specifies what type of 
proof is accepted in order to use general/vague environmental claims (e.g. environmentally 
excellent performance as attested for example by the presence of the EU Ecolabel). Overall, 
the enforcement costs are estimated at EUR 7-12 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 
0.5 – 0.8 million per year).  It is assumed that the measure would not require significant 
additional  resources  on  top  of  the  existing  ones  to  enforce  Unfair  Commercial  Practices 
Directive. In fact, some of the interviewed national enforcement authorities even indicated 
that  the  measure  might  lead  to  savings  as  it  would  help  them  to  prove  the  practice  of 
“greenwashing” more easily (less resources are needed to substantiate their assessment). For 
these Member States it is considered that the measure does not bring incremental costs. For 
the others, it is assumed that one Full Time equivalent would work half time with 50% of its 
time devoted to monitoring, 25% to inspections and the remaining 25% to handle complaints. 
For all Member States, 35h are assumed for two people getting familiarised with the measure 
and  the  adjustment  of  internal  procedures  to  start  enforcing  the  measure.  16  employees 

46 

 
 
  
would receive a 7h training. It is also assumed that there might be a yearly action per Member 
State, which will cost EUR 20,000 (based on market research). The costs of an Alternative 
Dispute Resolution body adjudication and of a court adjudication were obtained from the 
Impact Assessment for the review of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation and 
supporting study113.  The contribution of option 2.2.B to more effective enforcement will 
be less pronounced  than  that of option 2.2.A as authorities would need to  assess  to  what 
extent the specific claim complies with the criteria set out under this option. The costs are 
expected to be similar to those of option 2.2.A and amount to  EUR 7-12 million for the 
period 2025-2040 (or EUR 0.5 – 0.8 million per year). The calculation of the enforcement 
costs  followed  the  same  approach  and  assumptions  presented  for  the  previous  measure. 
Option 2.2.C will entail a combination of the impacts described for option 2.2.A and option 
2.2.B. There are significant economies of scales when the two options are combined, due to 
the fact that the expertise needed to investigate the two different types of claims at issue will 
be quite similar. Overall, the enforcement costs are estimated at EUR 7-12 million for the 
period 2025-2040  (or EUR 0.5 – 0.8 million per year). 

Impacts on the environment: 
As a result of the implementation of option 2.2.A, certain consumers will purchase products 
that will be truly better for the environment. Although it is not possible to assess how much 
“greener” those products will be (compared to the alternative that would be purchased in the 
baseline), it is estimated that the impacts on the environment will be highly positive. For 
the same reasons, it is estimated that the impacts on the environment of option 2.2.B will be 
also positive.. The impact on the environment of option 2.2.C will be highly positive (at 
least as high as the impact of option 2.2.A), but an exact quantification of the impacts is not 
possible.  

Coherence and applicability of the legal framework: 
Option  2.2.A  will  be  coherent  with  other  legislation,  such  as  the  EU  Ecolabel  or  the 
upcoming  Green  Claims  Initiative,  as  these  will  be  used  as  the  benchmark  to  assess  the 
reliability  of  the  claims.  Similarly  option  2.2.B  will  be  also  coherent  with  the  other 
legislation as this option will provide for general rules to capture the claims not regulated by 
others.  Option  2.2.C,  as  a  combination  of  options  2.2.A  and  2.2.B,  will  have  a  positive 
impact on ensuring a better and coherent application of the EU legal consumer framework, 
in particular of the UCPD, through adding more specific and stronger consumer protection 
rules. 

How do the options compare?  
The results of the MCA and sensitivity analysis114 (presented in Annex 9, section 2.4) shows 
that all options rank higher than the baseline, with option 2.2.C (the combination of options 
2.2A  and  2.2B)  coming  first,  followed  by  option  2.2.A  (Ban  of  general  /vague 
environmental claims), then option 2.2.B (Prohibition of environmental claims that do not 
fulfil a minimum set of criteria), and then the baseline.  

When looking at the proportionality of the 3 options, the MCA shows that the tangible and 
intangible  costs  of  options  2.2.A,  2.2.B  and  2.2.C,  including  on  businesses  and  public 

113 European Commission, Support study for the impact assessment on the review of the CPC Regulation 2006/2004/EC: 
and  European  Commission, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cpc_review_support_study_1_en.pdf 
SWD(2016) 164 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0164&from=EN. 

114 The summary of the performance of the options against the criteria is summarised in  Annex 8, and has been used to 
perform  the  MCA.  It  covers  both  a  qualitative  and  quantitative  assessment.  The  MCA  results  are  confirmed  by  the 
sensitivity analysis. See Annex 9 for its results.   

47 

 
 
 
                                                           
administrations,  are  outweighed  by  their  expected  benefits  for  consumers  and  the 
environment  (even  for  the  worst-case  scenario).  The  results  of  the  partial  cost-benefit 
analysis  (which  only  considers  tangible  and  monetisable  impacts)  also  suggest  that  the 
benefits of option 2.2.C are higher than their expected costs, although this is not necessarily 
the case for options 2.2.A and 2.2.B. 

6.2.3.  Sub-problem  2.3:  Consumers  are  faced  with  the  use  of  sustainability 
labels and digital information tools that are not always transparent and 
credible  

promoting 

Option  2.3.A:  Development  of 
principles 
the 
transparency  and  credibility  of  
sustainability  labels  and  digital 
information  tools  for  voluntary 
uptake 

Option  2.3.B:  Prohibition  of 
sustainability  labels  and  digital 
tools  not  meeting 
information 
minimum 
and 
transparency 
credibility requirements   

 Option  2.3.C:  Pre-approval  of 
sustainability  labels  and  digital 
information tools via an EU body 

Impacts of the policy options 
Impacts on consumers: 
The introduction of minimum criteria for sustainability labels and digital information 
tools (thus increasing their transparency and credibility), as envisaged under option 2.3.A, 
could enhance the quality of consumer decision-making. However, this option would rely 
on voluntary uptake, which would mean that there would be no harmonisation across labels 
or information tools. The introduction of minimum criteria for assessing the fairness of 
sustainability  labels  and  digital  information  tools,  as  envisaged  under  option  2.3.B, 
would  also  increase  the  transparency  and  credibility  of  these  labels  and  tools.  This  will 
enhance the quality of consumer decision-making and the level of consumer protection. The 
impact on consumer welfare depends on the extent of the impact of the measure in increasing 
consumer trust in labels. When assuming a moderate impact on consumer trust, this option 
is estimated to increase consumer welfare by EUR 4 500 – 6 610 million for the period 
2025-2040115 (or EUR 300 – 441 million per year). The impact on consumer protection of 
option 2.3.C, namely the requirement for pre-approval of sustainability labels and digital 
information tools via an EU body, is expected to be similar to those described for option 
2.3.B but slightly higher, as the compliance level will be higher given that only pre-approved 
labels and digital information tools will be allowed. The consumer welfare is estimated to 
amount to EUR 4 500 – 6 610 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 300 – 441 million 
per year), similar to option 2.3.B.  

Impacts on businesses: 
As option 2.3.A is voluntary, the impact of the option on businesses is negligible. Option 
2.3.B is expected to contribute more thoroughly to a level playing-field between products 
displaying sustainability labels but also between organisations running such labels, as well 
as organisations running such digital information tools. The entities running and managing 
the  labels  and  information  tools  will  have  administrative  costs  between  EUR  615  –  620 
million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 41  – 41.3 million per year). They will also 
incur substantive compliance costs resulting from implementing the necessary changes in 
their  internal  processes,  including,  for  the  organisations  running  the  labels,  carrying  out 

115 Based on the share of labels that do not currently comply  with the criteria, the share of consumers that do not take 
account  of  labels  as  they  do  not  trust  them,  the  increase  in  the  share  of  more  sustainable  products  and  the  estimated 
willingness to pay for these products. Further details are to be found in Annex 4. 

48 

 
 
                                                           
certifications of the applicants (if they are not doing it already at the baseline). These costs 
are estimated to amount to EUR 3 025 - 3 500 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 
201 – 233  million per year)  and are likely to be passed on to  manufacturers and sellers 
applying for the label. These do not include the costs for digital information tools as there is 
very limited data about the number of tools currently in use. Option 2.3.C is expected to 
bring  administrative  burdens  similar  to  the  ones  described  for  the  entities  running  and 
managing the labels and digital information tools in the context of option 2.3.B. These costs 
are estimated to amount to EUR 615 – 620 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 41 
– 41.3 million per year). The substantive compliance costs for this option are similar to 
those  described  for  option  2.3.B  plus  an  additional  fee  when  applying  for  pre-approval 
(which we assume will be similar to the upper limit of the EU Ecolabel fee). This will amount 
to EUR 3 120 - 3 580 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 208 – 239 million per 
year).  The costs of these options are significantly higher than that of the options related to 
Problem 1 (Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to make environmentally 
sustainable consumption choices) and Sub-Problem 2.1 (Consumers are sold products that 
do not last as long as they should and consumers expect) because they apply to a significantly 
higher number of businesses (about 40 times more). 

Impacts on public administrations: 

Given the voluntary nature of option 2.3.A, there will be no enforcement costs associated. 
Other costs to public bodies (including the Commission) will be related to the organisation 
of meetings and preparation of the minimum criteria. These are estimated to be around EUR 
94 000 in the first year and about EUR 16 000 per year116 . Enforcement costs under option 
2.3.B were estimated at EUR 14 - 15 million for the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 0.9 – 1 
million per year).It is assumed that the measure would not require significant additional 
resources on top of the existing ones to enforce the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. 
In  fact,  some  of  the  interviewed  national  enforcement  authorities  even  indicated  that  the 
measure might lead to savings as it will help them tackle the issue of lack of transparency 
and  reliability  of  labels  more  easily  (less  resources  are  needed  to  substantiate  their 
assessment).  For  these  Member  States  it  is  considered  that  the  measure  does  not  bring 
incremental costs. For the others, it is assumed that one Full Time equivalent will work to 
monitor (50%), carry out inspections (40%) and handle complaints (10%). For all Member 
States,  35h  are  assumed  for  two  people  getting  familiarized  with  the  measure  and  the 
adjustment  of  internal  procedures  to  start  enforcing  the  measure.  16  employees  would 
receive a 7h training. The costs of an Alternative Dispute Resolution body adjudication and 
of  a  court  adjudication  were  obtained  from  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  review  of  the 
Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  Regulation  and  supporting  study117.  Enforcement  of 
option 2.3.C will be significantly higher than in option 2.3.B as all labels will need to be 
pre-approved  by  an  EU  body.  The  costs  of  setting  up  and  running  the  EU  body  were 
considered to be around EUR 4.02 million per year118, which corresponds to a net present 
value for the period 2025-2040 of about EUR 42 million. National enforcement costs are 

116 Assuming six meetings in the first year to discuss and prepare the minimum criteria and then one meeting a year to 
revise the criteria. 
117 European Commission, Support study for the Impact Assessment on the review of the CPC Regulation 2006/2004/EC: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cpc_review_support_study_1_en.pdf and European Commission, SWD(2016) 
164 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0164&from=EN . 
118 

up 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2016/EN/SWD-2016-303-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF 

BEREC 

running 

Source: 

setting 

office. 

costs 

and 

49 

 
 
                                                           
estimated to be similar to those under option 2.3.B and amount to EUR 14 - 15 million for 
the period 2025-2040 (or EUR 0.9 – 1 million per year).  

Impacts on the environment: 
The impacts on the environment of option 2.3.A are estimated to be negligible (around zero) 
for the reasons mentioned above. Overall the impacts on the environment of option 2.3.B 
are expected to be positive. However, due to a series of factors (e.g. sustainability labels are 
often covering impacts other than climate change, there are no data on the share of sales per 
label etc.), it is not possible to estimate quantitatively the impact of the option.  The impact 
of option 2.3.C on the environment are expected to be similar to option 2.3.B, but for the 
same reasons not possible to estimate quantitatively.  

Coherence and applicability of the legal framework: 
There  was  no  issue  of  coherence  identified  for  option  2.3.A.  Option  2.3.B  will  have  a 
positive  impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  consumer  legal 
framework,  in  particular  of  the  UCPD,  as  it  will  strengthen  the  protection  of  consumers 
against misleading labels, including by building on existing requirements for labels under 
the Public Procurement Directive, Article 43119. Option 2.3.C will have a positive impact 
on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer  framework,  in 
particular of the UCPD. 

How do the options compare?  

The results of the MCA and sensitivity analysis120 (presented in Annex 9, section 2.5) show 
that  option  2.3.B  (Prohibition  of  sustainability  labels  and  digital  information  tools  not 
meeting minimum transparency and credibility requirements  ) ranks highest followed in the 
ranking by under the default scenario by option 2.3.C ( Pre-approval of sustainability labels 
and digital information tools via an EU body) in second place, with no discernible difference 
between  option  2.3.A  (EU-led  voluntary  initiative  to  develop  minimum  criteria  on 
sustainability labels) and the baseline. 

When looking at the proportionality of the 3 options, the MCA shows that the tangible and 
intangible  costs  of  option  2.3.B,  including  for  businesses  and  public  administrations,  are 
outweighed by its expected benefits for consumers and the environment (even for the worst-
case scenario). The results of the partial cost-benefit analysis (which only considers tangible 
and monetisable impacts) also suggest that the benefits of options 2.2.B and 2.2.C are higher 
than their expected costs, with 2.3.B coming out (on average) as more beneficial. 

7.  PREFERRED POLICY OPTIONS  

This Impact Assessment identifies a number of preferred policy options ensuring a coherent 
policy  approach  together  with  the  upcoming  Green  Claims  Initiative  and  Sustainable 
Products Initiative adopted together with this initiative. The presentation and assessment of 

119 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and 
repealing Directive 2004/18/EC 
120 The summary of the performance of the options against the criteria is summarised in  Annex 7, and has been used to 
perform the MCA. It covers both a qualitative and quantitative assessment. The MCA results are confirmed by a sensitivity 
analysis. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the ranking of options with the highest score only changes (where 
Option D ranks higher than Option B) when the weight assigned to effectiveness is high. See 
Annex 9: Detailed results from the Cost and Benefit Analysis and from the Multi-Criteria Analysis for its results.  

50 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
the options has confirmed the synergies that exist between the three initiatives. The preferred 
options selected are fully coherent with  the other two initiatives, and in several instances 
provide for general rules that the other two initiatives will usefully complement.  

For  each  of  the  sub-problems  addressed  by  this  Impact  Assessment,  the  option  which 
received  the  highest  ranking  overall  in  the  Multi-Criteria  and  sensitivity  analysis 
(presented in Annex 9, section 2.5), as detailed per sub-problem in Section 6 above, was 
always selected as the preferred policy option. As well as this quantitative analysis, the 
proportionality and qualitative impact of each of the preferred policy options, as detailed per 
sub-problem in Section 6 above, was always considered in the identification of the preferred 
policy options. 

In  relation  to  sub-problem  1.1  (lack  of  reliable  information  on  product’s  environmental 
characteristics at the point of sale), all options have been discarded at an early stage as their 
added  value  could  not  be  demonstrated,  and  the  measures  taken  under  the  Green  Claims 
Initiative  and  the  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  are  expected  to  reduce  this  sub-problem 
significantly.  

In relation to sub-problem 1.2 (the lack of reliable information on products’ lifespan at the 
point  of  sale),  option  1.2.C  will  be  selected  as  the  preferred  policy  option,  namely  the 
provision  of  information  on  the  existence  or  absence  of  a  producer’s  commercial 
guarantee of durability and of the period of time during which free software updates 
are provided, for a medium product scope (i.e. all energy-using goods), to be achieved via 
targeted amendments of the Consumer Rights Directive. The option will guide consumers 
towards products that last longer, thereby having positive impacts on the environment. The 
impact  on  businesses  of  informing  consumers  on  the  commercial  guarantees  and  on  the 
period of software updates will be limited as they will still be free to decide whether or not 
to offer such guarantees or such a period of free software updates. The complementarity with 
the  SPI  is  ensured,  as  the  “guaranteed  lifespan”  information  under  this  option  may  be 
complemented  in  the  future  under  the  SPI  with  other  information  requirements  (e.g. 
“expected/estimated lifespan”, which may be longer than the “guaranteed lifetime”) when 
considered  feasible  and  appropriate  subject  to  future  Impact  Assessments  related  to  SPI 
measures for specific products or groups of products. The proportionality of the measure as 
regards the producer’s commercial guarantee of durability is ensured by confining the scope 
of  the  measure  to  energy-using  goods,  thus  ensuring  that  traders  are  only  subject  to  this 
requirement in relation to goods for which durability can be reliably estimated and about 
which consumers are mostly interested to receive information. Moreover, proportionality is 
ensured  by  allowing  flexibility  for  the  producer  to  decide  on  whether  or  not  to  offer  a 
commercial  guarantee  of  durability,  and  for  what  duration,  depending  on  the  producer’s 
business strategy, the interaction between the seller and the producer, and the needs of the 
consumers in a given market or for a given product category. The costs of these information 
requirements  are expected to  be compensated by  an increase in  the price  of the good  (as 
consumers are willing to pay for longer commercial guarantees of durability) and possibly 
by  an  increase  of  demand  of  those  same  goods.  On  the  provision  of  information  on  the 
availability  of  free  software  updates,  proportionality  will  be  ensured  by  requiring  the 
provision of information on the existence of such updates only in the cases in which they are 
provided for a period that is  longer than the period for which the producer’s commercial 
guarantee  of  durability  is  provided,  and  by  requiring  the  provision  of  information  on  the 
absence of such updates according to the provisions of this proposal only in case there is 
also  no information  on the producer’s commercial guarantee of durability  provided. This 
ensures  that  consumers  are  not  subject  to  an  abundance  of  information,  or  ‘information 

51 

 
overload’, which could lead to confusion and thus interfere with their transactional decision. 
It  also  ensures  that  traders  are  not  subject  to  unnecessarily  burdensome  information 
requirements. 

In relation to sub-problem 1.3 (lack of reliable information at the point of sale on products’ 
reparability), option 1.3.E will be selected as the preferred policy option. This option entails 
the  provision  of  a  Repair  Scoring  Index,  or  other  relevant  repair  information  on  a 
where applicable/available basis, for an open product scope, to be achieved via targeted 
amendments  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive.    For  a  potentially  very  wide  range  of 
products, this option will provide consumers with information at the point of sale that will 
help  them  choose  products  that  are  more  easily  reparable,  whenever  manufacturers  have 
made this information available or when such information exists in accordance with EU or 
national  applicable  laws.  This  will  also  improve  consumers’  ability  to  repair  products  or 
have  them  repaired,  and  will  thus  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  environment  as  it  will 
positively affect the useful lifespan of products. Costs incurred by businesses will be very 
limited  as  sellers  will  have  to  provide  only  such  information  as  manufacturers  make 
available,  or  whenever  applicable  under  national  or  EU  product  rules.  Under  this  option, 
there will be no specific obligation for manufacturers to provide such information but they 
will be incentivised to compete to provide the best repair conditions on their products. The 
complementarity with the SPI is ensured, as the repair information that will be provided at 
the point of sale under this option can be specified in future requirements under the SPI (e.g. 
repair  scoring  index,  or  other  relevant  repair  information)  when  considered  feasible  and 
appropriate, subject to future impact assessments related to SPI implementing measures for 
specific products or groups of products. The proportionality of this measure is ensured by 
requiring  the  provision  of  such  information  at  the  point  of  sale  only  in  cases  where  a 
reparability score is available or required for that product in accordance with EU or national 
applicable  laws  or  whenever  other  relevant  repair  information  is  made  available  by  the 
producer. Traders are not obliged to provide information at the point of sale regarding the 
absence  of  such  information.  This  ensures  that  the  burden  placed  on  traders  by  these 
requirements is minimal. 

In relation to sub-problem 2.1 (products that do not last as long as they should or consumers 
expect), option 2.1.B will be selected as the preferred policy option. This option entails a 
ban  of  certain  identified  practices  of  early  obsolescence,  to  be  achieved  via  targeted 
amendments  of  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive.  This  will  help  enforcers  to 
effectively address these practices which lead to a faster obsolescence of products. This will, 
in  turn,  reduce  consumer  detriment  (caused  by  products  failing  early)  and  have  positive 
impacts on the environment, with goods lasting longer. It will also improve the level-playing 
field  between  businesses.  This  option  will  usefully  complement  future  SPI  or  Ecodesign 
requirements,  and  will  provide  better  consumer  protection  against  early  obsolescence  of 
specific product models (e.g. a specific model of coffee machine) through facilitating public 
enforcement and allowing the harmed consumers to claim individual remedies where such 
practices are deemed unfair. The SPI may on the other hand set specific requirements (e.g. 
on  minimum  durability  or  reparability)  for  the  whole  product  category  (i.e.  all  coffee 
machines) when considered feasible and appropriate subject to future Impact Assessments 
of  product  rules.  The  proportionality  of  the  ban  of  certain  practices  related  to  the  early 
obsolescence of products is ensured by targeting specific and well defined existing practices, 
including providing software updates which negatively impact the ability of the products to 
maintain their required functions and performance through normal use, omitting to provide 
software updates which are needed for the products to maintain their required functions and 
performance through normal use in accordance with legal requirements, marketing of goods  

52 

 
that have  been designed with a view to limit their durability, marketing of goods that do not 
allow disassembly or repair in accordance with legal requirements, and marketing of goods 
that are designed in a way to induce the consumer into replacing their consumable earlier 
than  necessary,  or  to  prevent  the  use  of  consumables  provided  by  alternative  producers, 
without informing the consumer thereof. This targeting of specific practices is proportionate 
as  it  ensures  legal  certainty  for  traders.  It  also  facilitates  enforcement,  as  enforcement 
authorities will not be required to prove that the early obsolescence of a product has been 
designed with the intention of stimulating the purchase of a new model of the product itself. 
Moreover, enforcement authorities will not be required to demonstrate the negative impact 
of  the  unfair  practice  on  the  consumers’  transactional  decision,  if  this  measure  would  be 
implemented via an update of  the ‘blacklist’ (Annex I) of the UCPD. 

In  relation  to  sub-problem  2.2  (unclear  or  not  well-substantiated  green  claims),  option 
2.2.C will be selected as the preferred policy option,  namely the banning of unfounded 
general/vague claims and setting criteria for assessing the fairness of all environmental 
claims. This will be achieved via targeted amendments of the Unfair Commercial Practices 
Directive. This option will usefully complement the Green Claims Initiative and provide a 
clear framework for the claims that the Green Claims Initiative does not yet cover. It will 
bring legal clarity both for businesses and enforcers as to which green claims can be allowed 
and under which conditions.  It will also improve consumer trust in green claims and will 
have a positive impact on the environment as consumers will be able to choose products that 
are  truly  environment-friendly.  The  proportionality  of  the  ban  of  general/vague 
environmental  claims  used  in  marketing  towards  consumers  is  ensured  by  bringing 
significant projected benefits for consumers while limiting the burden on traders. Traders 
will  be  permitted  to  make  general/vague  environmental  claims 
in  cases  where 
environmentally excellent performance of products or traders which can be demonstrated 
via Regulation (EC) 66/2010 (EU Eco-label), or officially recognised ecolabelling schemes 
in  the  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Article  11  of  Regulation  (EC)  66/2010,  or  in 
accordance with other applicable EU laws. Moreover, enforcement authorities will not be 
required  to  demonstrate  the  negative  impact  of  the  unfair  practice  on  the  consumers’ 
transactional decision, if this measure would be implemented via an update of  the ‘blacklist’ 
(Annex I) of the UCPD. The proportionality of the criteria for assessing the fairness of any 
environmental  claim  used  in  marketing  towards  consumers  is  ensured  by  introducing 
uniform minimum requirements. Traders shall fulfil these requirements when making such 
claims.  The  preferred  policy  option  does  not  prescribe  any  specific  methodology  for  the 
substantiation  of  any  environmental  claim.  Other  potential  legislation  may  be  tailored  to 
specific types of environmental claims, for example those based on certain environmental 
impacts. This option will also provide competent national bodies uniform criteria for helping 
them  to  assess  the  fairness  of  any  environmental  claim,  providing  legal  certainty  and 
facilitate enforcement activities. 

In relation to sub-problem 2.3 (the use of sustainability labels and digital information tools 
that are not always transparent or credible), option 2.3.B will be selected as the preferred 
policy  option.  This  option  entails  providing  minimum  transparency  and  credibility 
criteria for assessing the fairness of sustainability labels and digital information tools, 
and will be achieved via targeted amendments of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. 
This  will  provide  a  stronger  framework  to  ensure  the  reliability  and  transparency  of 
sustainability labels and digital information tools, thus having a positive impact on consumer 
trust.  By  setting  out  clear  criteria,  this  will  facilitate  the  work  of  enforcers.  The 
proportionality of the criteria for assessing the fairness of the display of sustainability labels 

53 

 
 
in  marketing  towards  consumers  is  ensured  by  requiring  a  limited  number  of  uniform 
minimum  requirements  to  ensure  the  transparency  and  credibility  of  such  sustainability 
labels towards consumers. This ensures that entities running sustainability labels, as well as 
the traders applying for those sustainability labels, do not face disproportionate costs. At the 
same  time  it  will  ensure  legal  certainty  for  traders,  facilitate  enforcement  activities  and 
pursue a high level of consumer protection. The proportionality of the criteria for assessing 
the fairness of sustainability information tools is ensured by introducing criteria to assess the 
transparency and credibility of the information provided by the tools only. No requirements 
are introduced that would subject the taking up and pursuit of the activity of a provider of 
such software to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect, thus 
ensuring the full compliance of the provisions with the provisions of Art. 4 (1) of Directive 
2000/31/EC regarding the establishment of information society services. This ensures that 
the impacts on traders providing or marketing such tools are limited. 

The  contribution  of  the  selected  options  to  this  initiative’s  specific  objectives  can  be 
summarised as follows: 

-  The  objective  of  enabling  informed  purchasing  decisions  by  consumers  to  foster 
sustainable consumption would be particularly achieved thanks to options 1.2.C and 
1.3.E, as these would guide consumers towards products with a longer guaranteed 
lifespan and actionable repair information. It would also be indirectly achieved by 
options 2.1.B, 2.2.C, and 2.3.B, as these options would strengthen the reliability of 
the information provided to consumers.   

-  The  objective  of  eliminating  untrustworthy  practices  that  cause  damage  to  the 
sustainable  economy  and  mislead  consumers  away  from  sustainable  consumption 
choices  would  be  particularly  achieved  through  options  2.1.B,  2.2.C,  and  2.3.B, 
which  would  tackle  early  obsolescence  practices,  greenwashing  and  the  lack  of 
transparency and credibility of sustainability labels and digital information tools.  
-  Finally the objective of ensuring a better and coherent application of the EU legal 
framework would be achieved thanks to all of the preferred policy options, as they 
prove  to  be  easily  enforceable  and  complement  effectively  the  existing  EU  legal 
framework.  

When the impacts of all of the preferred policy options are combined (options 1.2.C, 1.3.E, 
2.1.B, 2.2.C and 2.3.B), the initiative is expected to bring significant benefits to consumers 
compared to the baseline. It will  increase consumer welfare by at least  EUR 12.5 – 19.4 
billion for the period 2025-2040. This would amount to EUR 0.8 – 1.3 billion per year. 
This is a partial estimation only, due to lack of available data to carry out this monetisation 
for all selected options and/or full scope of some selected options. It will also bring benefits 
to the environment, with a partial estimation of the total saved CO2e over a period of 15 
years of 5 - 7 MtCO2e.  

To achieve these benefits, businesses will have to adjust, which will  cost about 65% +/-
18% (so between 47% and 83%) of the partial monetisable benefits, amounting to a total 
cost for businesses (combining one-off costs and annual recurrent costs) of between EUR 
9.1 – 10.4 billion for the period 2025-2040. This would amount to EUR 0.6 – 0.7 billion 
per year on average. This represents an average one off cost per company of between EUR 
556  - 568,  followed  by  an  annual  recurrent  cost  of  between  EUR  64  -  79  for  the  period 
covered. If we break these costs down further, we can see that SMEs will on average have a 
one off  cost  of EUR 525  – 536  and annual  recurrent  costs of  EUR 52  -  62, while large 
enterprises will have a one off cost of EUR 13 301 – 13 656, followed by annual recurrent 

54 

 
 
 
 
costs of EUR 4 919 – 6 965 for the period covered. On the other hand, businesses will also 
experience very important benefits related to level playing field as businesses that currently 
mislead consumers would have to align their practices with those that are truly sustainable. 
In addition, the preferred options would also benefit businesses by ensuring that companies 
active on the Single Market play by the same rules, thereby reducing barriers to cross-border 
trade. The enforcement of the preferred options on the part of public administrations will 
cost about EUR 441 800 – 502 200 per year per Member State. 

A  detailed  analysis  of  the  total  monetisable  consumer  welfare  benefits,  and  the  costs  for 
businesses and public administrations, of the all 5 preferred policy options combined (1.2.C, 
1.3.E, 2.1.B, 2.2.C and 2.3.B) as well as the benefits and costs per individual preferred policy 
option  can  be  found  in  Annex  3.  As  analysed  in  detail  in  Annex  8,  the  combination  of 
preferred policy options also brings other substantial benefits which were not monetised, 
such  as  impact  on  quality  of  consumer  decision  making,  consumer  trust,  and  consumer 
protection,  level  playing  field  and  reduction  in  barriers  to  cross-border  trade.  From  the 
foregoing, we can conclude that the impact of the combination of the preferred policy 
options  will  be  proportionate  in  relation  to  the  various  stakeholder  groups  concerned, 
including  consumers,  public  administrations  and  businesses  (both  SMEs  and  large 
enterprises).  Through  the  foreseen  reduction  of  CO2  emissions  and  other  environmental 
impacts, it will also bring important benefits to society as a whole. 

Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

The costs for businesses can be further broken down into adjustment costs and administrative 
costs in accordance with the criteria set out in the Commission’s Better Regulation Toolbox 
#58  and  #59121.  Based  the  analysis  of  costs,  the  only  one  of  the  preferred  policy  options 
which  would  incur  administrative  costs  is  option  1.2.C122.  This  option  would  entail  in 
particular costs for businesses in familiarising themselves with the information obligations, 
and for designing and placing information material (labelling)123. These costs would amount 
to  EUR  225-257  million  in  total  for  the  period  2025-2040  (combining  one-off  costs  and 
annual recurrent costs). On average, this would represent average administrative costs of 15-
17 million per year. Further details of how the costs are broken down by preferred policy 
option can be found in Annex 3. 

8.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The Commission will evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU 
added value of this intervention. In order to monitor and evaluate the progress made towards 
the objectives of this initiative, monitoring indicators have been identified and are listed in 
the Table available in Annex 10. These indicators can serve as the basis for the evaluation 
that should be presented no sooner than 5 years after the entry into application, to ensure that 
enough data is available after full implementation in all Member States. These indicators are 
partially based on statistics already collected in the framework of the Consumer Scoreboards 
published every two years and which relies on representative surveys with consumers and 
retailers  in  the  EU.  The  monitoring  will  also  include  a  mystery  shopping  and  targeted 

121 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/br_toolbox_-_nov_2021_-_chapter_8.pdf 
122 For further details, see Annex 4 
123 European Commission, Impact Assessment supporting study: Study on Empowering Consumers Towards 

the Green Transition, July 2021, Section 7.21, Table 45, p. 138 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
surveys.  It  will  also  feed  on  the  feedback  from  Member  States,  notably  the  experience 
collected in the course of coordinated checks (sweeps). Such sweeps will be planned after 
the entry into force of the instrument, in agreement with Member States.  

This data collection will also feed into the Commission's reporting on the transposition and 
implementation. In addition, the Commission will remain in close contact with the Member 
States and with all relevant stakeholders to monitor the effects of the possible legislative act. 
To limit the additional administrative burden, the proposed indicators on the table in Annex 
10 rely on existing data sources whenever possible. Data collection will aim to identify more 
precisely the extent to which changes in the indicators could be ascribed to the proposal. The 
surveys  carried  out  for  the  Consumer  Scoreboards  have  time  series  on  most  indicators, 
allowing in principle (through statistical analysis) to discern the impact of a particular policy 
initiative from broader trends. 

56 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

Lead DG: European Commission Directorate-General Justice and Consumers, DG JUST, 
Ref. Decide: PLAN/2020/7019. Adjusted Commission Working Programme 2020124, Annex 
I, nr. 6.   

2. 

Organisation and timing 

This Impact Assessment (IA) was carried out by Unit E1 “Consumer Policy’ of the European 
Commission, DG Justice and Consumers. The Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) on the 
Empowering the consumer for the green transition initiative125 was published on 23 June 
2020 along with its corresponding consultation strategy126. The IIA outlined the initiative’s 
context, objectives and policy options whilst also discussing expected impacts and evidence 
base.  

Four Inter-service Steering Group (ISSG) meetings were held between April and December 
2020 including participation from the Secretariat General, ESTAT and Directorates-General: 
AGRI, CLIMA, CNCT, COMP, ECFIN, EMPL, ENER, ENV, FISMA, GROW, HOME, 
JRC,  LS,  MARE,  MOVE,  SANTE  and  TRADE.  DG  JUST  agreed  with  the  Secretariat 
General on creating a sub-group of the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) ISG rather 
than setting up a separate ISG. The CEAP ISG sub-group was consulted on the draft IIA and 
consultation strategy, the open public consultation, the preparatory study and several drafts 
of this IA report in the first stages of the preparatory phase. The Inter-service consultation 
on the draft legal text and the revised IA report took place during the period 29 October 2021 
– 23 November 2021. 

3. 

Consultation of the RSB 

An upstream meeting was held with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 15 July 2020 
to informally discuss questions concerning how to prepare the best possible report for this 
initiative. The IA report was submitted to the RSB on 6 January 2021 with a subsequent RSB 
hearing scheduled on 3 February 2021. The RSB provided a negative opinion on 5 February 
2021.  Taking  into  account  the  RSB  comments,  a  revised  Impact  Assessment  report  was 
resubmitted  on  22  July  2021,  following  the  first  submissions  of  the  IA  reports  of  the 
Sustainable Products and Green Claims Initiatives on 20 July 2021. The RSB provided a 
positive opinion with reservations on 17 September 2021. 

RSB Comments of 3 February 2021 

The  Board  notes 
the  useful  additional 
information  provided  in  advance  of  the 
meeting and commitments to make changes 
to the report. 

How  RSB  comments  have  been 
addressed in the IA 

Overall,  the  IA  report  has  been  revised, 
shortened  and  streamlined  following  the 
RSB  Opinion  as  well  as  the  Impact 
Assessment Quality Checklist, improving 
its presentation as well as its content. The 

124  Adjusted  Commission  Work  Programme 

2020, 

adopted 

on 

27  May 

2020.  Available 

at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/cwp-2020-adjusted-factsheet_en.pdf 

125 European Commission, Inception Impact Assessment: Empowering the consumer for the green transition, 2020. 
126 Consumer policy – strengthening the role of consumers in the green transition, Feedback and statistics: Inception Impact 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12467-Empowering-the-

Assessment, 
consumer-for-the-green-transition/feedback?p_id=8017477 

57 

 
                                                           
the  Board  gives  a  negative 
However, 
opinion,  because  the  report  contains  the 
following significant shortcomings: 

between 
(consumer) 

the 
further  clarifies 
report  notably 
this 
initiative, 
interaction 
existing 
legislation  and 
forthcoming initiatives. It now identifies a 
preferred set of policy options. The report 
also further explains the product scope of 
this 
the  concept  of 
sustainability  followed.  The  criteria  and 
sub-criteria used for the assessment of the 
options has been further clarified.  Several 
annexes  have  been  streamlined, 
re-
organised and further developed.  

initiative  and 

consumer 

legislation 

1) It is unclear how this initiative relates to 
existing 
and 
forthcoming  proposals  on  environmentally 
sustainable products. It does not sufficiently 
explain 
these  measures  will 
complement  each  other  and  how  overlaps 
will be avoided. 

how 

of 

the 

certain 

including 

The  revised  IA  report  explains  how  this 
initiative  relates  to  existing  consumer 
targeted 
legislation, 
amendments 
consumer 
directives as part of this initiative, and to 
the parallel initiatives in preparation such 
as the Sustainable Products Initiative and 
the  Green  Claims  Initiative.    It  provides 
further  explanation  how  the  measures 
complement each other and how overlaps 
are avoided. 

(2)  The 
report  does  not  sufficiently 
demonstrate the size of the problem  and its 
relation  to  sustainability  objectives.  The 
scope of concerned products is unclear. 

The  relation  to  the  various  sustainability 
objectives has been clarified as well as the 
scope  of  concerned  products  for  each  of 
the  options  assessed.  The  chapter  on 
problem  definition has  been also  revised 
and streamlined. 

(3) The report is  not  sufficiently precise on 
the  content  and  foreseen  functioning  of  the 
options. The justification for favouring some 
options over others is not always clear. 

(4)  The  analysis 
conclusions for political decision-making. 

to  draw  clear 

fails 

RSB Comments of 17 September 2021 

(1) Although this initiative intends to set the 
empowering, 
overall 
consumers to play an active role in the green 
transition, the report does not explain why it 

framework 

for 

58 

The  policy  options  have  been  better 
the 
described  with  a  new 
dedicated chapter, clarifying content and 
foreseen functioning. The justification for 
favouring  some  options  has  been  made 
clear.  

table 

in 

The report identifies  now a preferred set 
of  policy  options  and  provides  clear 
conclusions for political decision-making.  

How RSB comments have been addressed 
in the IA?  

The reasons for addressing the particular 
aspects  of  environmental  sustainability 
covered  by  this  initiative  are  further 
elaborated  and  clarified  in  section  1.  

 
cover 
not 
does 
sustainability issues 

all 

environmental 

aspects 

the  area  of  environmental 
Within 
sustainability,  this  initiative  focuses  on 
environmental 
those 
of 
sustainability  which 
can  be  most 
appropriately addressed by consumer law, 
as  foreseen  in  the  CEAP  and  the  New 
Consumer Agenda. It therefore focuses on 
empowering consumers in their decision-
making process, and does not consider the 
use  of 
law 
instruments that may in  addition provide 
further  solutions  for  better  empowering 
consumers for the green transition. 

  other  non-consumer 

(2) The structure of the options is not always 
clear.  Most  options  do  not  seem  to  be  real 
alternatives,  but  are  complementary  and 
could  be  combined.  It  is  not  clear  why  the 
report considers such combination of options 
for some problems only. The report does not 
propose  any  options  to  tackle  the  lack  of 
reliable  information  on  the  environmental 
characteristics of products 

The report now clarifies in section 5.2 the 
rationale  behind  the  structuring  of  the 
options, namely so as to allow for a clear 
decision as to the preferred policy options. 
In  the  case  of  each  of  the  sub-problems, 
the report also now clarifies in section 5.2 
which  of  the  options  are  potentially 
complimentary  and  which  are  mutually 
exclusive.  The  reasons  for  not  selecting 
any options to  tackle the lack of reliable 
information 
environmental 
characteristics  of  products  are  further 
elaborated. 

on 

detailed 

discussion 

A 
the 
proportionality  of  each  of  the  preferred 
policy  options  for  each  of  the  sub-
problems is added to section 7. 

of 

(3) The report does not  clearly demonstrate 
the proportionality of the preferred option. It 
is not clear that the preferred option proposes 
the best solution. 

4. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

External expertise 

A study was outsourced to a consortium led by ICF S.A. to feed into the preparation of this 
Impact Assessment. The study, which took place between February 2020 and June 2021, 
relied on a combination of sources and methods, including extensive in-depth consultation 
with stakeholders both at the national and EU level, a consumer survey, industry surveys, 
desk research, legal analysis, literature review, mystery shopping exercises, stakeholder and 
expert  workshops  and  a  combination  of  approaches  to  assess  the  impacts  of  the  policy 
options (including agent-based simulation, cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis).  

Stakeholder consultation 

This IA relies on an extensive stakeholder consultation, which includes  several strands to 
achieve complementarity, representativeness and comprehensiveness in the views collected.  

59 

 
 
An Open Public Consultation ran between 30 June 2020 and 6 October 2020, covering both 
the New Consumer Agenda but also 3 initiatives in the field of consumer law, including the 
one covered by this IA. The questionnaire of the public consultation was made available on 
the Commission's website in all 24 EU languages. The section of the OPC devoted to this 
initiative  yielded 313 responses. A summary  report 127 of the findings was  published in 
November 2020.  

Targeted  consultation  was  conducted  by  the  external  consultants  under  the  study  to 
complement and deepen the feedback collected in the Open Public Consultation. It included 
149 in-depth interviews with selected key stakeholders in the main groups concerned by the 
initiative: national authorities, EU and national business associations and EU and national 
consumer associations. In addition, an online industry survey allowed to collect the views of 
110 companies. An online consumer survey was carried out in all Member States to collect 
the views and experience of 11 805 consumers.  

Four workshops have also been organised. The first one allowed to collect expert views on 
the extent of the problems and examples of effective actions. A second one with industry 
associations allowed to collect views on how digital means can be used to provide product 
information. The third one gathered all stakeholder groups to collect feedback on possible 
options to address the problem identified. Finally, the last one allowed to collect the view of 
consumer  protection  enforcement  authorities  (CPC  authorities)  to  collect  their  views  on 
enforcement challenges.  

Results from these stakeholder consultations are summarised in Annex 2.  

Other studies and sources 

Further references, including recent market and behavioural studies commissioned by the 
European Commission on environmental claims and the role of consumers in the circular 
economy, have been used in the development of this Impact Assessment and are mentioned 
throughout the text. This Impact Assessment also cross-references studies and evaluations 
which have fed into the 2017 Fitness Check of Consumer and Marketing law and the follow-
up New Deal for Consumers proposals as well as in the ongoing preparatory work for the 
SPI and Green Claims initiative.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The data collection and analysis carried out have a number of limitations, whose impact has 
been mitigated to a maximum possible extent. 

The estimations of consumer detriments and costs for businesses, while providing a sense 
of magnitude, have limitations which are explained in detail in Annex 4. 

127 Consumer policy – strengthening the role of consumers in the green transition, Feedback and statistics: Inception Impact 

Assessment,   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12467-Empowering-the-
consumer-for-the-green-transition/public-consultation  

60 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

1. 

Introduction and overview of the consultation strategy 

The  goal  of  the  consultation  strategy  was  to  ensure  that,  across  a  series  of  consultation 
activities, all relevant stakeholders were given an opportunity to express their views on the 
initiative aimed at empowering consumers in the green transition. The primary stakeholders 
of  this  initiative  are  consumers  and  businesses  (retailers  and  producers)  across  the  EU. 
However, besides these two, other stakeholders are indirectly or potentially impacted. The 
following stakeholder categories were thus targeted as part of the consultation strategy: 
■  Non-governmental organisations 
(including representing social, 
environment and other interests), 
platforms and networks; 
■  Certification and labelling 

■  Consumers (including vulnerable ones); 
■  Producers (both large companies and 

■  Retailers (both large companies and 

SMEs); 

SMEs); 

■  Trade, business, and professional 

associations representing producers and 
retailers and also repair sector;  
■  Consumer organisations and groups, 

organisations of persons with 
disabilities and older persons; 
2. 

Consultation activities and tools 

schemes; 

■  Local, national, and international 

public authorities; 

■  Researchers and academics; 
■  Other public or mixed entities; 
■  Commission expert groups. 

The  consultation  employed  a  mix  of  methods  and  tools  to  ensure  a  comprehensive  and 
representative collection of views and experiences were gathered in relation to the problems 
aimed to be addressed by the initiative and the possible policy options. 

The table below summarises the types and numbers of stakeholders consulted as part of the 
study, in line with the consultation strategy. 

Stakeholder type 

Feedback on 
the IIA 

Open Public 
Consultation 

Targeted 
stakeholder 
consultations 

Industry 
survey 

Consumer 
survey 

Business associations 
Companies 
Consumer organisations 
Public authorities 
EU citizens/consumers 
Academic/research 
institutions 
NGOs 
Environmental 
organisations 
Other 
Total 

23 
17 
3 
5 
3 
2 

21 
2 

3 
77 

85 
48 
20 
37 
74 
9 

28 
- 

21 
- 
21 
47 
- 
- 

12 
- 

14129 
315 

18130 
119 

- 
174128 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
174 

- 
- 
- 
- 
11 805 
- 

- 
- 

- 
11 805 

The main consultation activities that were conducted were as follows:  
-  A consultation on the inception IA, which was carried out by the Commission between 
23 June 2020 and 1 September 2020. The purpose of this exercise was to collect views 

128 Out of which 164 by way of a CATI survey. 
129 Includes 2 non-EU citizens. 
130 Includes label, logos, information tools and other certification schemes. 

61 

 
 
                                                           
from  stakeholders  on  the  Commission’s  initially  intended  direction  of  the  Impact 
Assessment. In all, 77 entities submitted their feedback. 

-  An  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  that  was  open  to  all  stakeholders  and  which 
included six main questions on the main obstacles and problems faced by consumers in 
the EU that prevents them from having a more active role in the green transition. The 
OPC was conducted by the Commission between 30 June 2020 and 6 October 2020. It 
received 315 responses.131 . 

-  Targeted stakeholder consultations, consisting of interviews and surveys, which were 
conducted  with  relevant  EU  and  Member  State  level  stakeholders  between  June  and 
October 2020. Five targeted questionnaires132 and targeted interviews gathered feedback 
on the relevant aspects of the initiative and elements of the Impact Assessment. In all, 
119 stakeholders participated.  

-  An industry survey consisting of (i) a long online survey that was distributed to more 
than 500 companies but which, despite all efforts, only yielded 10 responses (seven from 
manufacturers and three from retailers) and (ii) a CATI survey which was conducted to 
complement the online survey in view of the low response rate. The CATI survey was 
conducted in August/September 2020 and gathered responses from 164 companies.  The 
CATI survey focussed on the impact and cost on industry of the different possible policy 
options. 

-  A consumer survey that ran between 6 and 30 August 2020 and which was targeted at 
consumers across all EU27 Member States plus the UK. A total of 11 805 consumers 
participated. The survey consisted of 45 questions covering respondents views on the 
problems and options covered by the initiative; experiences related to failures of goods 
from various categories; experiences with goods that did not last as long as expected; 
willingness to pay for information on durability and reparability and for goods that will 
last longer or that are easier to repair; behaviour related to and willingness to pay for 
sustainable products. 

-  A series of four workshops, including (i)  an expert workshop with  10 independent 
experts, held on 9 July 2020; (ii) a workshop with 39 industry representatives to discuss 
the  use  of  digital  means  to  provide  product  information  to  consumers,  held  on  14 
September 2020; (iii) a stakeholder workshop open to all stakeholders which involved 
72 participants (from consumer associations, NGOs, industry associations and others) on 
6  October  2020;  and  (iv)  a  workshop  with  CPC  authorities  on  14  October  2020  to 
delve into their experience in enforcement relating to green issues under EU consumer 
law,  in  particular  greenwashing  and  premature  obsolescence  practices  as  well  as  on 
possible improvements. 

3. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

The Inception Impact Assessment (IA) was published on the Commission’s website on 23 
June 2020 and feedback from consumers, industry and other stakeholders were invited until 
1  September  2020.  77  responses  were  received,  the  majority  from  business  associations 
(30%), NGOs (25%) and companies/business organisations (22%). Limited feedback was 
also received from public authorities (6%), consumer organisations (4%), EU citizens (4%), 
academic/research institutions (3%), environmental organisations (3%) and others (4%). The 
responses are publicly available.  

131 A summary is available via the European Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ website: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12467-Empowering-the-consumer-for-the-green-transition 
132 Consumer associations, NGOs and other entities; Business associations; Logos/labels, information tools and certification 
schemes; Public bodies; EU and international entities. 

62 

 
                                                           
The  industry  survey  was  originally  intended  to  be  an  online  survey  with  follow-up 
interviews.  Over  500  companies  were  contacted  through  various  means,  but  despite 
significant effort,  only ten replied.  In view of the low  response rate,  a CATI survey was 
launched. This yielded a higher level of participation, with 164 replies from retailers (50%), 
manufacturers  (40%)  and  service  providers  (14%).  To  ensure  maximum  coverage  and 
geographical balance, the survey was conducted across five markets: Italy (24%), Poland 
(22%),  France  (20%),  Germany  (18%)  and  Sweden  (16%).  It  was  carried  out  on  an 
anonymous basis and results were processed and comprehensively analysed.  

The targeted consultation was based on (i) semi-structured questionnaires (interviews) and 
(ii)  an  online  questionnaire  (survey).  Stakeholders  were  selected  based  on  their  role  and 
relevance to the study as per the consultation strategy. Careful attention was given to ensure 
a balanced representation between Member States and stakeholder categories. There were 
119 respondents; over a third (37%) represented national authorities/bodies, 18% EU and 
national consumer organisations, 18% EU and national industry/business associations, 15% 
other  stakeholders  involved  with  labels,  logos,  information  tools  and  other  certification 
schemes,  10%  other  NGOs  and  research  organisations  and  3%  EU  and  international 
authorities. The number of stakeholders initially contacted was significantly higher than the 
final  numbers  surveyed  and  interviewed,  which  may  be  the  result  of  some  ‘stakeholder 
fatigue’  and  unavailability  due  to  challenges  related  to  Covid-19  and  the  timing  of  the 
consultation  which  ran  during  the  summer  period.  The  deadline  of  this  consultation  was 
extended (to October 2020) to allow more stakeholders to respond. 

The Open Public Consultation yielded a relatively high response rate (315 replies). Nearly 
three quarters (73%) of the company/business organisations that responded were SMEs.  

The  consumer  survey,  with  11,805  participants,  was  representative  of  the  EU27+UK 
population with a confidence level of 99%. The composition of the survey sample reflects 
the  population  in  terms  of  share,  age  group  and  gender.  The  consumer  survey  was  also 
undertaken on an anonymous basis and the results have been comprehensively processed 
and analysed. 

The  workshops  provided  an  opportunity  to  validate  the  findings  from  the  earlier 
consultation activities and to ensure the robustness of the results. 

4. 

Main stakeholder feedback per consultation activity 

The results from the consultation have been fed into the wider study, both to substantiate the 
assessment of the problems and for the assessment of possible solutions. The main feedback, 
per strand of consultation, is described concisely below. The main results per problem and 
per  possible  option/policy  intervention  are  presented  in  more  detail  in  Section  5  of  this 
Annex. 

4.1. 

Inception Impact Assessment 

Feedback on the proposed EU initiative was generally very positive and most respondents 
believed it would help, over the longer term, to foster more sustainable behaviours. There 
was  particularly  strong  support  for  EU  action  capable  of  (i)  bringing  about  a 
common/harmonised approach to the provision of consumer information and (ii) removing 
unsustainable products from EU markets by, for example, making it easy for consumers to 
recognise such products. There was support for limiting the proliferation of environmental 
labels and claims to build credibility and limit confusion among consumers. Opinions were 
divided  as  to  the  various  options  presented  in  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment,  with 
stakeholders  showing  a  slight  preference  for  Option  2  (“a  new  stand-alone  consumer 

63 

 
protection instrument”) over Option 1 (“amend existing consumer protection legislation”) 
and over a combination of both Options 1 and 2.  

4.2.  Open Public Consultation 

The ‘difficulty to verify the reliability of environmental claims (including climate related) 
on products’ was identified as the biggest obstacle to enhanced consumer participation in the 
green transition and towards a more sustainable consumption behaviour, though the extent 
to which this poses a barrier was perceived differently among stakeholder groups (58% of 
consumer  organisations  agreed,  versus  23%  of  company/business  organisations).  The 
perception that environmentally-friendly products are more expensive was also identified as 
an important obstacle. 
A  large  share  of  respondents  (44%)  had  found  it  too  expensive  to  repair  (or  cheaper  to 
replace) products; thought there was a significant divergence in views among stakeholder 
groups. 76% of consumer organisations identified cost as the main barrier to repair, but only 
12% of business associations agreed. Common problems that stakeholders had encountered 
when trying to repair products themselves included the price of spare parts being too high 
(23%),  lack  of  user-friendly  repair  manuals  (22%)  and  components  being  impossible  to 
repair due to their product design (22%). 
Most respondents had experienced the unexpected failure of a product in the last three years 
(24% had not). ICT products were identified as most problematic (47%), followed by small 
household appliances (20%) and clothing and footwear (19%). 
‘Information about the reparability of the product’ was identified as the option most useful 
to  enable  consumers  to  choose  more  sustainable  products  and  participate  in  the  circular 
economy  (selected by 41%). This  was strongly  favoured by public authorities (57%) and 
citizens (54%), but not by companies/business organisations (21%), who instead favoured 
the  provision  of  ‘Information  on  the  product’s  life-cycle  environmental  and  climate 
footprint’ (56%). This was also rated as the second-best option overall (39%). 
Providing  better  information  on  products’  durability/lifespan  was  identified  as  the  best 
option  to  empower  consumers  for  the  green  transition  (33%  agreed).  This  was  strongly 
favoured by consumer organisations (75%) and citizens (52%), but not by company/business 
organisations (16%) or business associations (14%), who favoured ‘Raising awareness about 
the role of consumers on circular economy and green transition’. 
Providing  ‘Detailed  EU  guidance  for  enforcement  bodies  against  greenwashing  and 
obsolescence practices and on enforcing consumer information rules’ was identified as the 
most effective option to improve enforcement of EU consumer laws to enhance participation 
of consumers in the green transition (selected by 36%). 
Targeted stakeholder consultations 

4.3. 

In  relation  to  Problem  1,  almost  all  stakeholders  (except  those  representing  industry) 
concurred with the view that consumers are not given, or do not have access to, information 
on products’ environmental impact; on the lifespan of goods and product-specific features 
that  may  lead  to  early  failure;  and  on  the  availability  of  repair  services  spare  parts  and 
software updates/upgrades.  
In relation to Problem 2, most consumer organisations and ‘other’ organisations considered 
that consumers’ are subjected to ‘greenwashing’ and that ‘premature obsolescence’ occurs 
to some extent; however, representatives from industry tended to disagree. The proliferation 
of sustainability labels and logos was also identified as a problem by stakeholders from most 
stakeholder groups. 
Views from stakeholders on the possible solutions are presented in section 5.2 of this Annex 
below.   

64 

 
4.4. 

Industry survey 

In the CATI survey, manufacturers and retailers were asked to indicate the scale of impact 
and cost on their organisation of the introduction of various legal requirements. Respondents 
were asked to provide a score on a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 represents  ‘no impact’ and 5 
indicates  ‘very  high  impact’.  Overall,  it  was  indicated  that  an  obligation  to  ‘Provide 
information on aspects in the product’s design that can cause its early failure’ would have 
the biggest impact (mean score of 2.61) and would be most costly (mean cost score of 2.25). 
In  contrast,  respondents  indicated  that  ‘Stronger  consumer  protection  against  planned 
(intentional) obsolescence practices’ would have the lowest impact (scored 2.37) and that an 
‘Obligation  to  provide  information  on  the  duration  of  the  commercial  guarantee  for  all 
products’ and an ‘Obligation to expressly inform the consumer that no commercial guarantee 
of durability is provided for the given product’ would be least costly (both with a mean cost 
score of 2.44). 

4.5.  Consumer survey 

Consumers are seemingly open to participating in the green transition. Almost half (49%) 
said they would be happy to have a product repaired, rather than replaced, if it breaks down 
within the legal guarantee period; mainly ‘To reduce my environmental impact’ (selected by 
63%) or because ‘It is the fair thing to do (44%). Respondents who preferred a replacement 
were concerned that the product may not be properly repaired (54%) or that a new product 
would last longer (46%).  
Most respondents were unwilling to pay for information (e.g. via an app) on the durability 
and reparability of ‘durable goods’133. Around half (47% to 51% depending on the product 
type)  were  willing  to  pay  extra  on  top  of  the  initial  price  for  a  product  that  lasts  longer 
without having to be repaired; and a similar proportion (41% to 47%) were willing to pay 
extra for an identical product that lasts longer with minor/reasonable repairs (paid by the 
consumer). An even larger share (61% to 68%) were willing to pay extra for an identical 
product covered by a commercial guarantee that would cover the cost of repairs.  
The ‘Perceived higher price of environmentally-friendly products’ was identified as the main 
obstacle  that  prevents  consumers  from  adopting  more  sustainable  behaviours  (39%)  and 
‘Providing better information on products’ durability/lifespan’ (26%) and ‘Providing better 
consumer information on the life-cycle environmental and climate footprint of the product’ 
(23%)  were  identified  as  the  most  effective  options  to  help  consumers  choose  more 
environmentally sustainable products.  
Results  indicate  that  consumers  are  willing  to  pay  extra  for  environmentally  sustainable 
products, and even more so for products with claims validated by a trustworthy independent 
body. 

4.6.  Workshops 

The  expert  workshop  (held  9  July  2020)  validated  many  of  the  findings  from  the  other 
strands of consultation. It was largely agreed that greenwashing occurs and that information 
on  product  durability  can  be  difficult  to  obtain.  Doubts  were  raised  that  products  are 
intentionally designed to fail early. Various barriers to reparability were identified including 
speed of repair, cultural factors and availability of spare parts. 

133 In this context, durable goods include products such as large household appliances (e.g. washing machines, refrigerators, 
etc.), small household appliances and tools (e.g. coffee machines, irons, hair dryers, etc.), electronic and IT products (e.g. 
smartphones, laptops) and furniture (e.g. sofas). 

65 

 
 
 
                                                           
The industry workshop on digital means (held 14 September 2020) highlighted some of the 
opportunities  that  digital  tools  (e.g.  QR  codes,  e-labels)  offer  for  conveying  mandatory 
product  information  and  simplifying  product  labels.  It  also  highlighted  some  of  the 
challenges, particularly for SMEs who may need financial support to implement these tools 
and for vulnerable consumers who do not have access to, or who cannot use, them.  
The stakeholder workshop (held 6 October 2020) again reiterated many of the same points 
that were raised in the previous consultation activities.  
Participants at the CPC workshop (14 October 2020) highlighted the difficulty of proving 
intent  with  regard  to  planned  obsolescence.  Public  authorities  noted  that  they  lack  the 
technical  expertise  to  be  able  to  enforce  green  claims,  but  were  divided  on  whether 
enforcement of the current general EU consumer rules (UCPD) is effective. 

5. 

Feeding the consultation results into the Impact Assessment 

5.1. 

Extent of the problems 

5.1.1.  Problem 1: Consumers lack reliable information at the point of sale to make 

environmentally sustainable consumption choices 

Sub-problem 1.1. Lack of reliable information on the environmental characteristics of 

products 

Feedback  received  across  the  various  strands  of  consultation  strongly  indicates  that 
consumers lack information on the environmental characteristics and impacts of products, 
though this view was more strongly supported among consumers and their representatives 
than by industry. 
In the consultation on the inception IA, 20 respondents (26%) commented on this problem 
and  all  acknowledged  that  the  quality  of  information  provided  to  consumers  on  the 
environmental  characteristics  of  products  is  not  optimal.  A  notable  share  (27%)  of 
respondents  in  the  OPC  similarly  indicated  that  it  is  difficult  to  check  if  products  are 
environmentally friendly; though a much larger share of consumers (31%) and consumer 
organisations  (42%)  identified  this  as  a  problem  versus  companies  (32%)  and  business 
associations (13%). 
About a quarter of consumers that participated in the consumer survey identified “difficulty 
to  check  if  products  are  environmentally-friendly”  (29%)  and  “difficulty  to  verify  the 
reliability of environmental claims (including climate related) on products” (25%) as key 
obstacles that prevent them from adopting more sustainable consumption behaviours. Only 
less 
“perceived  higher  prices  of  environmentally-friendly  products  compared 
environmentally-friendly alternatives” was identified as a greater obstacle (39%). The OPC 
yielded  a  similar  result,  with  “difficulty  to  verify  the  reliability  of  environmental  claims 
(including  climate  related)  on  products”  ranked  first  (33%  respondents)  and  “perceived 
higher  prices  of  environmentally-friendly  products  compared  to  less  environmentally-
friendly  alternatives”  ranked  second  (30%),  though  “difficulty  to  check  if  products  are 
environmentally-friendly” was ranked fifth (27%). 
In  the  targeted  consultation,  most  (76%)  respondents  indicated  that  consumers  lack 
awareness of the environmental impacts of products because the information is not provided, 
or  not  available.  Only  14%  (all  industry  associations)  indicated  that  such  information  is 
generally  provided.  Results  from  the  CATI  survey,  however,  paint  a  somewhat  different 
picture: 19% of respondents reporting providing information on the environmental impacts 
of all their products (48% for some or most). In the food and drink sector, 64% said that they 
do not provide this information at all. 

to 

66 

 
 
Sub-problem 1.2. Lack of reliable information on the lifespan of goods 

A  lack  of  reliable  information  on  the  lifespan  of  goods  was  consistently  identified  as  a 
problem  across  all  strands  of  consultation.  The  problem  was  identified  across  most 
stakeholder groups; only stakeholders from industry tended to disagree.  
In the consultation for the inception IA, all eight of the respondents who commented on sub-
problem  1.2  acknowledged  that  information  pertaining  to  products’  durability  is  either 
lacking or, where provided, is often unclear, unreliable and/or misleading. Similarly, in the 
OPC, over a quarter (27%) of respondents indicated that a lack of information on how long 
products will function without repair creates an obstacle to enhanced consumer participation 
in the circular economy and towards more sustainable consumption behaviour. There was, 
however,  a  strong  divergence  in  views  among  the  different  stakeholder  groups  that 
participated  in  the  OPC.  Consumer  associations  (53%),  academic/research  institutions 
(44%),  public  authorities  (39%),  NGOs  (37%)  and  citizens  (33%),  on  the  one  hand,  all 
thought that the lack of information on the lifespan of goods poses an important barrier to 
the green transition, but this was not the case for companies/businesses (15%) or business 
associations (8%). 

Consumers believe that information on the lifespan of products is important for empowering 
their  participation.  In  the  consumer  survey,  “information  on  a  ‘guaranteed’  product’s 
lifespan” was  identified by nearly a third (30%)  of respondents  as being  one of the most 
useful  pieces  of  information  to  enable  them  to  choose  more  sustainable  products.134 
However,  when  buying  large  household  appliances  (49%),  small  household  appliances 
(45%), electronic  and  IT products  (55%), and furniture (51%),  around half of consumers 
were not told the estimated lifespan of the product before being repaired and a substantial 
proportion (17% to 25% depending on the product group) were not told the length of the 
commercial  guarantee.  Furthermore,  49%  to  55%  of  consumers  were  not  told  how  long 
software updates and upgrades would be provided. 

The  CATI  survey  sought  to  explore  in  more  depth  whether  manufacturers  provide 
information on the expected lifespan of their products. Less than a quarter (23%) said that 
they provide this information for ‘all products’ and only 6% said yes ‘for most’. In contrast, 
nearly a third (32%) of manufacturers did not know the expected lifespan of their products 
and a further 17% said that they do not provide this information. The results from the CATI 
survey indicate that this information deficit is not being met by retailers either. Only 15% of 
retailers  always  provide  information  on  the  expected  lifespan  of  products,  where  this 
information is not provided by the manufacturer. Just over half (59%) of retailers provide 
this information for some products. Nearly a third (30%) said that they provide information 
on ‘software updates/upgrade policy and period’. 

In the targeted consultation, most stakeholders confirmed that consumers are not provided 
with information on either the lifespan of goods (without and with minor repairs).  

Sub-problem 1.3. Lack of reliable information about products’ reparability 

A lack of reliable information to  support the repair, update and upgrade of products  was 
consistently  identified  as  problematic  by  consumers,  their  representatives  and  most  other 

134 Respondents could select up to 3 out of 15 options. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
groups  of  stakeholders  during  the  consultation.  Contrary  to  this,  representatives  from 
industry mostly indicated that information on reparability is widely available.  
In the consumer survey, around half of consumers said  that they  were not  told how long 
spare parts would remain available (48% to 55% depending on the product group) Almost 
all consumer associations and other organisations consulted during the targeted consultation 
considered that information on the availability of repair services, on the availability of spare 
parts and on relevant software update/upgrades is not widely available to consumers. This 
finding  also  corroborates  the  information  gathered  in  the  earlier  consultation  for  the 
inception  IA,  where  most  respondents  acknowledged  that  consumers  are  not  sufficiently 
made aware of products’ extent of reparability. Similarly, in the OPC, 33% of citizens, 53% 
of consumer organisations and 39% of public authorities ranked ‘difficulty to know how long 
products  will  function  without  repair’  as  an  important  obstacle  to  enhanced  consumer 
participation in the circular economy and towards more sustainable consumption behaviour. 

The view from industry was somewhat different, however. In the OPC, only 8% of business 
associations and 15% of company/business organisations thought that a ‘difficulty to know 
how long products will function without repair’ creates an obstacle to enhanced consumer 
participation  in  the  green  transition.  Similarly,  during  the  targeted  consultation,  most 
industry associations felt that information relating to reparability is widely available. Nearly 
half  (45%)  of  manufacturers  in  the  CATI  survey  claimed  to  provide  information  on  the 
‘period in which spare parts will be available’, 40% said that they provide information on 
the ‘period in which repair services will be available’.   

5.1.2.  Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to the 

sustainability of products 

Sub-problem 2.1. Consumers are sold products that do not last as long as they could or 

consumers expect (“early obsolescence”) 

Across the different strands of consultation, most stakeholder groups (including consumers 
and  their  representatives,  but  not  those  representing  industry)  considered  that  premature 
obsolescence occurs to some extent; though most also believed that product failure is not 
necessarily  planned. Based on feedback in  the consultation  for the inception  IA, planned 
obsolescence is a practice that has become more commonly discussed over time. However, 
enforcement authorities were unable to provide any information on how often it occurs. 
Product failure appears to be a common problem. In the OPC, most respondents indicated 
that they had experienced the unexpected failure of one or more products in the past 3 years; 
with ICT products identified as being most problematic. Nearly half the participants (47%) 
said that they had experienced the unexpected failure of an ICT product in the last 3 years. 
All 
(100%)  consumer  associations,  73%  of  public  authorities  and  66%  of 
companies/businesses said that they had experienced such a failure.  
Independent experts consulted during the targeted consultation indicated that while products 
may be failing earlier than they should, this may not be linked to an intention of companies 
to  increase  their  replacement  rate.  In  the  long  industry  survey,  two  participants  who 
commented on intentional obsolescence claimed not to apply such practices; though this may 
not be representative of industry practice as a whole. Industry representatives also questioned 
whether shorter lifespans are linked solely to the choices of manufacturers, rather than to 
consumer behaviour, such as poor maintenance and increased use. 
While most stakeholders were convinced of the existence of obsolescence practices, most 
also considered them difficult to verify.  

68 

 
 
When asked whether they were told by the seller about known weaknesses that might cause 
a product to fail prematurely, consumers indicated that sellers generally do not provide this 
information.  Results  from  the  consumer  survey  indicate  that  information  about  potential 
weaknesses is  provided  only  a quarter of the time (20%) for large household  appliances, 
30% of the time for small household appliances, 17% of the time for electronics, and 26% 
of the time in the case of furniture.  

Sub-problem 2.2. Consumers are faced with the practice of making unclear or not well-

substantiated green claims (“Greenwashing”) 

The  view  of  most  respondents  across  all  the  different  strands  of  consultation  was  that 
greenwashing is a problem; only industry representatives tended to disagree. 
In  the  consultation  for  the  inception  IA  and  the  targeted  consultation,  the  majority  of 
participants (except those representing industry) recognised that greenwashing has become 
an  important  and  persistent  problem  that  is  impeding  consumers’  ability  to  choose  more 
sustainable  products.  This  coincides  with  the  results  from  the  OPC,  in  which  33%  of 
respondents selected "difficulties to verify the reliability of environmental claims (including 
climate related) on products" as a relevant obstacle to enhanced consumer participation in 
the circular economy and towards more sustainable consumption behaviour. Over half (58%) 
of consumer organisations and 36% of citizens selected this as a relevant obstacle. 
Unfounded  or  unsubstantiated  environmental  labels  and  claims  were  also  identified  by 
various  stakeholders  (including  consumer  organisations  and  public  authorities)  as 
misleading consumers. Their feedback indicates that information is deliberately manipulated 
(e.g.  using  general  and  vague  terms)  rather  than  being  completely  false.  Industry 
associations, however, tended to disagree that the practice of ‘greenwashing’ is prevalent. 
Public authorities noted (at the CPC workshop) that they often find it difficult to prove that 
environmental  claims  are  unfounded  or  unsubstantiated  because  they  lack  the  technical 
knowledge to analyse the evidence provided by traders.  
In the consumer survey, 70% of respondents indicated that they would report a misleading 
or false claim about how environmentally friendly a product or service is. The most common 
reason cited for not reporting a misleading or false claim was a belief that complaining would 
not have an impact. 
In contrast, most industry representatives disagreed with the assertion that greenwashing is 
problematic.  In  the  OPC,  less  than  a  quarter  (24%  of  business  associations  and  23%  of 
companies/businesses) selected "difficulties to verify the reliability of environmental claims 
(including  climate  related)  on  products"  as  a  relevant  obstacle  towards  more  sustainable 
consumption behaviour.  

Sub-problem 2.3. Consumers are faced with the use of sustainability labels and digital 
information tools that are not always transparent and credible 

selected 

In  the  consultation  for  the  inception  IA  and  the  targeted  consultation,  most  respondents 
identified the proliferation of sustainability logos, labels and other claims as an important 
and  persistent  problem  across  the  EU.  Similarly,  in  the  OPC,  over  a  quarter  (27%)  of 
transparency/ 
participants 
understanding/reliability  of  sustainability  logos/labels  on  products  and  services"  as  a 
relevant obstacle to empowering consumers for the green transition. Interestingly though, it 
was  industry  representatives  that  were  more  likely  to  identify  this  as  a  problem  than 
consumers  and  their  representatives.  Moreover,  34%  of  businesses  identified  the  "the 
proliferation and/or lack of transparency / understanding / reliability of sustainability logos 
/ labels" as an obstacle versus only 27% of citizens and 16% of consumer organisations. In 

proliferation 

and/or 

lack 

"the 

of 

69 

 
the consumer survey, only 16% of consumers identified this as an obstacle to adopting more 
sustainable consumption behaviours.135  
This issue has been amplified by the rapid emergence of a number of (private/voluntary) 
labelling schemes at national / Member State level, making comparability across products 
increasingly  difficult  for  consumers.  In  addition,  there  are  concerns  among  stakeholders 
interviews that not all labels are certified or validated (by a recognised institution), which 
may thus be driving consumers to choose products that are not necessarily “green.”  
In  comparison  to  issues  around  logos/labels,  far  fewer  stakeholders  identified  ‘the 
proliferation  and/or  lack  of  transparency/understanding/reliability  of  IT  tools’  as  being 
problematic. In the OPC, only 8% of respondents identified this as an important obstacle and 
a similar percentage of respondents in the consumer survey (9%) identified the ‘Proliferation 
and/or lack of transparency/understanding/reliability of IT tools (e.g. consumer apps) that 
provide  advice  for  a  more  sustainable  consumer  behaviour’  as  an  obstacle  that  prevents 
them from adopting more sustainable consumption behaviours. 

5.2.  Views on possible options/policy interventions 

5.2.1.  Problem 1: Consumers lack relevant information at the point of sale to 

make environmentally sustainable purchases 

Sub-problem 1.1. Lack of reliable information about products’ environmental 

characteristics 

In  the  consultation  for  the  inception  IA,  most  of  the  38  respondents  who  commented  on 
potential solutions to sub-problem 1.1 seemed to favour the idea of making changes to the 
information  requirements  surrounding  the  environmental  characteristics  of  consumer 
products, though respondents held different views on how to go about it.  
In the OPC, 39% of respondents indicated that it would be useful to have information on the 
product’s life-cycle environmental and climate footprint. This reflects the results from the 
targeted  consultation,  in  which  most  respondents  (across  all  stakeholder  categories) 
indicated that requiring an indication of the overall environmental performance of products 
would be most effective.  
In the targeted  consultation,  most business  associations (four out  of five)  thought  that an 
option  to  mandate  the  indication  of  the  overall  environmental  performance  of  products 
would be at least somewhat feasible, though three thought that the option would entail high 
costs and two moderate costs. Various challenges were also identified, including a risk that 
the  option  may  unfairly  impact  certain  product  categories.  There  was  a  view  from  the 
industry that  current  information requirements (such as those from  the  CRD) are already 
appropriate and sufficient. A majority (five out of six) of the public authorities that provided 
a view believed that the option would be at least somewhat effective.  
In the CATI survey, manufacturers and retailers were asked to indicate the scale of impact136 
on  their  organisation  of  the  introduction  of  a  legal  ‘obligation  to  provide  information  on 
environmental  characteristics  of  products’.  The  average  (mean)  score  given  was  2.55. 
Although this represents only a moderate impact, it is of note that, of all the possible legal 
requirements proposed, this was given the highest impact score. Manufacturers and retailers 
were also asked about the costs of introducing a legal requirement to provide information on 

135  
136  
‘very high impact’.  

Consumers were limited to selecting up to 3 out of 14 options. 
Respondents were asked to provide a score on a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 represents ‘no impact’ and 5 indicates 

70 

 
 
                                                           
the  environmental  characteristics  of  products.  This  option  was  also  estimated  to  be  the 
costliest, with a score of 2.75 (out of 5).  

Sub-problem 1.2. Lack of reliable information about products’ lifespan 

In the consultation for the inception IA, stakeholders (except those representing industry) 
generally  indicated  that  information  on  durability  can  help  consumers  adopt  more 
sustainable  behaviours.  However,  it  was  also  recognised  that  the  nature  and  extent  of 
information to be provided on durability ought to be carefully thought out.  
In the OPC, ‘providing better consumer information on products’ durability (lifespan)’ was 
selected as the most effective option to empower consumers for the green transition (33% 
respondents). Further, when asked what information would be most useful for consumers to 
choose sustainable products, over half said ‘information on products’ lifespan’, either as a 
guaranteed lifespan (28%), expected lifespan (19%) and/or lifespan with minor reasonable 
repairs  (11%).  Citizens  were  most  likely  to  select  this  option  and  company/business 
organisations were least likely. A similar finding was reflected in the consumer survey, in 
which ‘information on the ‘guaranteed’ product lifespan’ was selected by consumers (30% 
of respondents) as one of the two most useful pieces of information to help them choose 
sustainable products (the other being ‘information on the products’ life-cycle environmental 
and  climate  footprint’).  In  the  targeted  consultation,  15  out  of  17  public  authorities 
considered that a requirement to provide an ‘indication of the availability of an additional 
commercial  guarantee  of  durability  (beyond  the  statutory  legal  guarantee)’  would  be  an 
effective option, 14 out of 17 thought it would be easy to enforce, and 11 out of 16 thought 
it would be easy to monitor.137 
In the CATI survey, manufacturers and retailers were asked to indicate the scale of impact 
on their organisation of the introduction of a legal ‘obligation to provide information on the 
expected lifespan of products without repair for all products’. The mean score given was 
2.53. In terms of costs, the option was given a score of 2.30. Manufacturers and retailers 
were  also  asked to  indicate the scale of impact  and costs on their organisation  of a legal 
‘obligation  to  provide  information  on  the  duration  of  the  commercial  guarantee  for  all 
products’. This was given a mean impact score of 2.12 and cost score of 2.04, making it the 
lowest impact and one of the least costly options proposed.  

Sub-problem 1.3. Lack of reliable information about products’ reparability 

There was general acceptance across all stakeholder groups that environmental information 
provided to consumers should cover reparability.  
In the OPC, just under a quarter (22%) of participants selected ‘providing better consumer 
information  on  products’  reparability’  as  an  effective  option,  though  there  were  big 
differences  between  the  views  of  different  stakeholder  groups.  Two  thirds  (65%)  of 
consumer associations and 35% of citizens thought that this option would be effective, but 
only 3% of business associations and 5% of companies agreed. Nearly half the respondents 
in the OPC (48%) said that ‘information about the reparability of the product (e.g. repair 
scoring,  availability  of  spare  parts,  repair  manuals,  repair  services…)’  would  be  an 
effective option. The results from  the targeted  consultation  support these  findings.  In the 
targeted consultation, all stakeholders thought that an option to inform consumers about the 
availability of spare parts would be at least somewhat effective.  

137  
easy to monitor 

‘Highly effective’ or ‘Somewhat  effective’, ‘Mostly’ or ‘Somewhat’ easy to enforce, ‘Mostly’ or ‘Somewhat’ 

71 

 
                                                           
In the CATI survey, manufacturers and retailers were asked to indicate the scale of impact 
on  their  organisation  of  the  introduction  of  an  ‘obligation  to  provide  information  on 
availability  of  repair  services’  and  ‘availability  of  user-friendly  repair  manuals’.  These 
options were given a mean impact score of 2.41 and 2.44 respectively (out of 5). In terms of 
cost, respondents in the CATI survey gave both these options a mean score of 2.14.  
In the targeted consultation, some respondents also discussed potential challenges associated 
with  the  proposed  options.  Among  business  associations,  there  were  concerns  that 
misleading  information  would  be  provided  to  consumers  from  retailers,  notably  about 
reparability. These  respondents  felt that manufacturers would be better placed to provide 
that information as opposed to sellers or retailers. Furthermore, some business associations 
warned  against  the  potential  information  overload  that  may  result  from  additional 
information requirements. Finally, some public authorities highlighted that information on 
reparability may not prove effective in encouraging repairs / reuse if buying a new product 
is much cheaper to consumers.  

5.2.2.  Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to the 

sustainability of products 

Sub-problem 2.1. Consumers are sold products that do not last as long as they could or 

consumers expect (“early obsolescence”) 

In  the  consultation  for  the  inception  IA,  there  was  a  general  acceptance  that  early 
obsolescence practices should be more formally addressed by law. However, results from 
the  OPC  indicate  a  divergence  in  views  across  stakeholder  groups.  Two  thirds  (65%)  of 
consumer  associations  identified  ‘providing  a  stronger  protection  against  practices  that 
cause products to fail earlier than can normally be expected (so-called "early and planned 
obsolescence")’ as an effective option to empower consumers to play their role in the green 
transition and 35% of citizens and 28% of public authorities agreed. However, only 3% of 
business  associations  and  5%  of  companies/businesses  thought  that  this  option  would 
achieve the desired goal. The prevailing view among business associations was that the costs 
entailed by the proposed option would be high.  
In the CATI survey, manufacturers and retailers were asked to indicate the scale of impact 
on their organisation of the introduction of ‘stronger consumer protection against premature 
obsolescence  practices’  and  ‘stronger  consumer  protection  against  planned  (intentional) 
obsolescence practices’. These options were given a mean impact score of 2.55 and 2.37 
respectively (out of 5). The highest score was given for ‘small household appliances’. In 
terms of cost, respondents in the CATI survey gave ‘stronger consumer protection against 
premature  obsolescence  practices’  a  mean  score  of  2.13.  The  highest  cost  score  was  for 
‘large household appliances’. 
However,  public  authorities  raised  concerns  about  the  enforcement  of  options  aimed  at 
curtailing the practice of planned obsolescence. They noted that it may  not be possible to 
prove planned obsolescence, and that they lack the required product knowledge.  

Sub-problem 2.2. Consumers are faced with the practice of making unclear or not well-

substantiated environmental claims (‘greenwashing’) 

The  consultation  has  highlighted  an 
in  views  between 
citizens/consumers  on  the  one  hand,  who  do  not  feel  they  are  being  ‘greenwashed’,  and 
consumer  organisations  on  the  other  who  are  concerned  that  consumers  need  stronger 
protection against unclear or unsubstantiated claims. Only 17% of citizens in the consumer 
survey  identified  ‘providing  a  stronger  protection  against  greenwashing  (i.e.  claims  on 

interesting  divergence 

72 

 
environmental qualities  of  products  or services that  are exaggerated, too vague, false or 
impossible to prove’ as an effective option to empower consumers to the green transition.138 
In contrast, 45% of consumer organisations in the OPC thought that this option would be 
effective.    
When asked which information is most useful for consumers to choose sustainable products 
and  participate  in  the  circular  economy  around  17%  of  respondents  indicated  that 
“recommendations about the sustainability (i.e. environmental, social aspects included) of 
the product by a trusted public or private source (e.g. a public authority, expert, celebrity, 
friend)”  are  useful  for  consumers.  Citizens  (24%)  and  company/business  organisations 
(23%)  indicated  that  such  recommendations  are  useful  for  consumers,  but  only  10%  of 
consumer organisations and 11% of public authorities and ‘other’ organisations agreed. 
In the consultation for the inception IA, most respondents stressed the need for a common 
or harmonised methodology for calculating or estimating products’ environmental impacts. 
Stakeholders  believed  that  this  would  facilitate  certification  or  validation  and  prevent 
unsubstantiated environmental claims and labels from being advertised.  
In the targeted consultation, stakeholders were asked their views on two options: banning 
claims that are too vague unless they are substantiated and banning claims that are not based 
on  a  series  of  specific  criteria.  Most  thought  that  the  proposed  options  would  be  highly 
effective,  and  most  business  associations  also  thought  the  options  would  be  ‘somewhat 
feasible’. Industry representatives were, however, concerned that the options would entail 
high  costs.  Most  public  authorities  thought  that  it  would  be  ‘somewhat  easy’  to  enforce. 
However,  some  warned  against  challenges  with  enforcement  and  monitoring  if:  (1)  the 
options are defined in a too general way; and (2) no adequate metrics are defined against 
which to test whether a claim is unfounded / unsubstantiated. Some of the interviewed CPC 
authorities even indicated that the measures might  lead to  savings as it will help  them to 
prove the practice of “greenwashing” more easily (less resources are needed to substantiate 
their assessment). 
Some of the other challenges commonly discussed, notably by business associations, related 
to the need for developing sector-specific approaches to testing and validating green claims 
across industries and sectors (owing to product differences). There would also be a need to 
engage  with  all  relevant  stakeholders  within  an  industry.  It  was  noted  that,  where  views 
diverge, this could slow down the process of developing the necessary measurement criteria 
for validating environmental claims.  
In the CATI survey, manufacturers and retailers were asked to indicate the scale of impact 
and cost on their organisation of ‘banning some practices related to greenwashing’. This 
option was given a mean impact score of 1.91 and cost score of 2.08 (both out of 5, with 5 
representing the highest impact/cost). Interestingly, an option ‘banning vague environmental 
claims unless they are verified/certified by independent  authority/or  based on recognised 
assessment methodology’ was deemed to be less effective (score of 1.83) and more costly 
(score of 2.17). In contrast, an option ‘setting in EU consumer law specific requirements for 
green claims’ was indicated to be more effective (2.09) but also more costly (2.38). 

Sub-problem 2.3. Consumers are faced with the use of sustainability labels and digital 
information tools that are not always transparent and credible 

In  the  consultation  for  the  inception  IA,  most  respondents  generally  favoured  the 
introduction of tighter rules for the verification and validation of sustainability labels, logos 

138  
option. 

Respondents were able to select up to 3 out of a possible 16 measures. This was the third most commonly chosen 

73 

 
                                                           
and claims. However, there was less support for a single EU environmental label that would 
capture all sustainability aspects pertaining to a product. 
Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) in the OPC similarly identified ‘providing a greater 
transparency and reliability for sustainability logos/labels (i.e. covering environmental and 
social aspects)’ as an effective option to enable consumers to play their role in the circular 
economy. In contrast, only 7% selected “providing a greater transparency and reliability 
for  IT  tools  (e.g.  consumer  apps)  providing  advice  for  a  more  sustainable  consumer 
behaviour”. Companies/businesses were the stakeholder types most likely to identify both 
these options as effective. 
In  the  targeted  consultation,  stakeholders  were  asked  their  views  on  an  option  ‘setting 
minimum  requirements  (on  transparency,  reliability,  etc.)  for,  and  possibly  certify, 
sustainability labels/logos’. Most consumer associations thought that the proposed option 
would be ‘somewhat effective’ and other stakeholder groups were even more positive. Most 
business  associations,  public  authorities  and  other  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  option 
would  be  ‘highly  effective’.  Most  business  associations  also  indicated  that  the  proposed 
option would be ‘feasible’. However, there was also some concern that it could entail high 
costs. 
Eight out of fifteen public authorities believed that the option would be ‘somewhat easy to 
enforce’139 and seven out of 13 thought it would be ‘easy to monitor’140. One public authority 
noted that there can be many criteria for third-party certification schemes and that this creates 
a challenge for enforcement. Another noted that enforcement and monitoring may require 
in-depth technical knowledge of each specific product/sector, which enforcement authorities 
often lack. In fact, some of the interviewed CPC authorities even indicated that the measure 
might  lead  to  savings  as  it  will  help  them  tackle  the  issue  of  lack  of  transparency  and 
reliability  of  labels/logos  more  easily  (less  resources  are  needed  to  substantiate  their 
assessment). 
In the CATI survey, manufacturers and retailers were asked to indicate the scale of impact 
on  their  organisation  of  the  introduction  of  an  option  ‘setting  minimum  criteria  for 
sustainability labels/logos to ensure that consumers can trust and rely on them’. This option 
was given a mean impact score of 2.37 (out of 5), indicating a moderate expected impact. In 
terms  of  cost,  respondents  in  the  CATI  survey  gave  a  mean  score  of  2.61,  indicating  a 
moderate expected cost.  
In  addition  to  the  formal  consultation  process  described  in  this  Annex,  consumer 
organisations have made it known that in particular in relation to sub-problems 1.2, 2.1 and 
2.2, they would prefer measures which are more ambitious than the preferred policy options 
that have been selected in this Impact Assessment.141 

139  3 replied  "Easy  to  enforce",  5  "somewhat  easy  to  enforce",  2  “Neither  easy  nor difficult  to  enforce”,  4  "Somewhat 
difficult to enforce" and 1 “Difficult to enforce". 
140 4 replied "Easy to monitor", 3 "Somewhat easy to monitor", 2 “Neither easy nor difficult to enforce”, 3 “Somewhat 
difficult to monitor", 1 “Difficult to monitor". 
141 BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation,  Durable and repairable products – changes needed for a successful 
path towards the green transition, June 2021. BEUC, Getting rid of greenwashing, Restoring consumer confidence in 
green claims, 2020 

74 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1. 

Practical implications of the initiative 

Consumers would be positively affected by the initiative. Consumer decision making would 
increase thanks to the options aimed at improving the availability of information at the point 
of sale about the existence and length of producer’s commercial guarantees of durability, 
about  the  period  of  availability  of  free  software  updates  and  about  the  reparability  of 
products. It would also increase thanks to the options aimed at tackling greenwashing and 
unreliable  and  non-transparent  sustainability  labels.  Consumer  protection  would  also 
improve  as  consumers  will  be  able  to  opt  in  a  more  transparent  way  for  products  with 
extended commercial guarantees if that would suit their needs. They would also be better 
protected from misleading environmental claims and products that fail early. In turn, this 
would lead to higher consumer trust in the market, and notably in more sustainable products. 
Overall, the monetisable consumer welfare would be quite consequent, primarily because 
consumers would save money on products that last longer and can be repaired more easily.  

The impacts on the environment would also be positive. The options would guide consumers 
towards  these  products  that  are  the  most  sustainable.  Thanks  to  the  preferred  options, 
products would also be expected to last longer and be repaired more often than they are now. 
This would in turn lead to higher circularity, less CO2 emitted in production and fewer other 
negative environmental impacts.  

The impacts on sellers and producers would be two-fold. On one hand, they would incur 
higher costs, particularly linked to obligations to provide certain information, for instance, 
on  the  existence  of  a  producer’s  commercial  guarantees  of  durability  or  on  reparability. 
However, these extra costs would be limited considering the average prices of the products 
concerned, and, even though they would likely be passed on to consumers, they are unlikely 
to  affect  the  demand.  On  the  other  hand,  options  to  address  greenwashing  and  early 
obsolescence would also improve the level-playing field between companies as businesses 
that currently mislead consumers would have to align their practices with those that are truly 
sustainable.  In  addition,  as  several  Member  States  have  enacted  or  are  in  the  process  of 
adopting specific legislation on durability or reparability information or obsolescence, the 
preferred options would reduce barriers to cross-border trade within the Single Market and 
ensure that companies  active on the Single Market  play by the same  rules. The initiative 
would also have an impact on organisations running sustainability labels as they would have 
to  comply  with  new  requirements  increasing  the  transparency  and  credibility  towards 
consumers. These costs are likely to be passed on to the companies applying for such labels.  

Public  authorities  would  face  higher  costs  particularly  linked  to  the  monitoring  and 
enforcement  of  the  preferred  options.  However,  the  options  have  also  been  designed  to 
render enforcement easier: for instance, on greenwashing, authorities have mentioned that 
the options considered could even lead to savings as it will help them to prove the practice 
of “greenwashing” more easily.  

There  are  also  other  parties  who  may  be  affected  by  the  measures  introduced  by  this 
initiative, but who were not considered in the analysis because the corresponding impacts 
were  considered  minor  and  therefore  not  selected  in  the  screening  of  impacts.  One  such 
category is Third Countries. It can be estimated that the level playing field established by 
this initiative would also bring benefits to businesses located in Third Countries, as those 
businesses that currently mislead consumers would also have to align their practices with 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
those that are truly sustainable in order to sell their products on the EU market in conformity 
with the measures selected. Furthermore, none of the preferred policy options selected would 
negatively impact Third Country trade, as the requirements selected are of such a nature as 
to be easily complied with by traders located in Third Countries. The screening of impacts 
is further specified in Annex 4. 

76 

 
 
 
2. 

Summary of costs and benefits 

All  figures  presented  below  are  for  the  entire  period  2025-2040  for  the  entire  EU-27, 
explaining the high values.  

I. Overview of Benefits of the Preferred Options for the period 2025-2040  

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Direct benefits (present value of the total monetisable direct benefits for the period 2025-2040) 
Option 1.2.C: Information on the existence and length of a producer’s commercial guarantee of durability and on the 
period of time during which free software updates will be provided by manufacturers 

Consumer welfare  

~EUR 2 355 - 3 555 million 

Main beneficiaries: consumers 

Reduction of CO2 emissions  ~EUR 8 - 13 million 

Main beneficiaries: society  
Emissions reduced during production, based 
on products lasting 1 year longer.  

Option 1.3.E: Provision of Repair Scoring Index, or other relevant repair information on a where applicable/available 
basis 

Consumer welfare 

Reduction of CO2 emissions 

Not possible to assess 

Not possible to assess 

Main beneficiaries: consumers 

Main beneficiaries: society  

Option 2.1.B:  Ban of certain identified practices associated with early obsolescence 

Consumer welfare 

Main beneficiaries: consumers 

~EUR 1 800 – 2 250 million 

Reduction of CO2 emissions 

Main beneficiaries: society  

~EUR 77 - 90 million 

Option 2.2.C: Ban of general /vague environmental claims  + Prohibition of environmental claims that do not fulfil a 
minimum set of criteria 

Consumer welfare 

Main beneficiaries: consumers 

~EUR 3 735 – 8 870 million 

Option  2.3.B:  Prohibition  of  sustainability  labels  and  digital  information  tools  not  meeting  minimum  transparency  and 
credibility requirements   
Consumer welfare 

Main beneficiaries: consumers. 

~EUR 4 500 – 6 610 million  

Consumer welfare 

~EUR 12 390 – 19 285 million 

Total benefits of all preferred options together  

Reduction of CO2 emissions  ~EUR 80 - 103 million 

TOTAL 

~EUR 12 470 – 19 388 million 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
II. Overview of Costs of the Preferred Options for the period 2025-2040  

Citizens/Consumers142  

Businesses143 

Administrations144 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Direct  adjustment 

costs 

Direct 

administrativ
e costs 

Direct  regulatory 
and 

fees 
charges 

Direct 

enforcement 
costs 

Total: ~EUR 
390 - 410 
million 

Per company: 
~EUR 2511 - 
2695 

Total: ~EUR 
110-115 
million 

Per company: 
~EUR 708 - 
760  

Annual 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
33 – 43 million 

Annual per 
company 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
216 - 283 

Total (present 
value for 2025-
2040): ~382 – 
503 million 

Annual 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 9-
12 million 

Annual per 
company 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
61 - 80 

Total (present 
value for 2025-
2040): ~108 – 
142 million 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total: EUR 
~0.1 million 

Per Member 
State: ~EUR 
3 300 

Annual 
(average in 
the period 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 1.3 – 
2.2 million 

Annual per 
Member State 
(average in 

the 

Option 
1.2.C: 
Informati
on 
existence 
and length 
of 
a 
commerci
al 
guarantee 
and on the 
period  of 
time 
during 
which free 
software 
updates 
will 
provided 
by 
manufact
urers 

be 

142  Businesses may decide to pass on some of the costs linked to the initiative to consumers. However, the extent of that 

is not possible to quantify.  

143  Administrative burdens for the two first measures and compliance costs for the three last ones.  
144  Enforcement costs.  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Option 
1.3.E: 
Provision 
of  Repair 
Scoring 
Index,  or 
other 
relevant 
repair 
informatio
n  on  a 
where 
applicable
/available 
basis 

Indirect costs 

Direct  adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct  regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

the period 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 48 900 
– 81 350 

Total (present 
value for 
2025-2040): 
~15 – 27 
million 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Negligible, 
assuming full  
economies of 
scale (e.g. 
  costs for 
familiarisation)   

Negligible  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Negligible 
assuming full  
economies of 
scale with the 
option 1.2.C 
(e.g. 
monitoring, 
inspections) 

Negligible 
assuming 
full  
economies 
of scale 
with the 
option 1.2.C 
(e.g.  costs 
for 
familiarisati
on) 

Indirect costs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

of 

Option 
2.1.B: 
Ban 
certain 
identified 
practices 
associated 
with  early 
obsolesce
nce 

Direct  adjustment 
costs 

Total: ~EUR 
167 – 170 
million 

Per company: 
~EUR 1099 – 1 
119 

Annual 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
88 – 125 
million 

Annual per 
company 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
528 - 825 

Total (present 
value for 2025-
2040): ~1 023 – 
1 460 million 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct  regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total: 
~EUR 0.3 
million 

Per Member 
State: ~EUR 
9 870 

Annual 
(average in 
the period 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 8 – 9 
million 

Annual per 
Member State 
(average in 
the period 
2025-2040): 
EUR 0.33 – 
0.34 million 

Total (present 
value for 
2025-2040): 
~103 – 104 
million 

Indirect costs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Option 
2.2.C:Ban 
of  general 
/vague 
environme
ntal 
claims    + 
Prohibitio
n 
of 
environme
ntal 
claims 
that do not 
fulfil 
a 
minimum 
of 
set 
criteria 

Direct  adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct  regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

Total: ~EUR 2 
2 625 – 2 680 
million 

Per company: 
~EUR 373 – 
380 

Annual 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
58 – 70 million 

Annual per 
company 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 8 
– 10 

Total (present 
value for 2025-
2040): ~675 –  
820 million 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total: 
~EUR 0.12 
million 

Per Member 
State: ~EUR 
4 270 

Annual 
(average in 
the period 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 0.43 – 
0.74 million 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annual per 
Member State 
(average in 
the period 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 16 000 
– 27 200 

Total (present 
value for 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 7 – 12 
million 

Indirect costs 

- 

- 

- 

Option 
2.3.B: 
Prohibitio
n 
of 
sustainabi
lity  labels 
and digital 
informatio
n tools not 
meeting 
minimum 
transpare
ncy 
and 
credibility 
requireme
nts   

Direct  adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct  regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

Total: ~EUR 
618 - 620 
million 

Per company: 
~EUR 87 – 88 

Annual 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): EUR 
~260 – 300 
million 

Annual per 
company 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
37 – 43 

Total (present 
value for 2025-
2040): ~EUR 3 
022 – 3 500 
million 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total: 
~EUR 0.13 
million 

Per Member 
State: ~EUR 
4 450 

Annual 
(average in 
the period 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 1.2 – 
1.29 million 

Annual per 
Member State 
(average in 
the period 
2025-2040): 
~EUR 44 500 
– 47 677 

Total (present 
value for 
2025-2040): 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct  adjustment 
costs 

Total costs 
for 
all 
preferred 
options 
together 

Indirect 
adjustment costs 

Administrative 
costs 
offsetting) 

(for 

Indirect costs 

- 

- 

- 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

14 – 15 
million 

- 

- 

Total: 
 ~EUR 3800 – 
3880  million 

Per company: 
~EUR 540 – 
552 

Annual 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
438 – 539 
million 

Annual per 
company 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
63 – 77 

Total (present 
value for 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
5102 – 6283 
million 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total: 
 ~EUR 110-115 
million 

Per company: 
~EUR 708 - 
760  

Annual 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
9-12 million 

Annual per 
company 
(average in the 
period 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
61 - 80 

Total (present 
value for 2025-
2040): ~EUR 
108 – 142 
million 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Disaggregation of costs of preferred options: 

Total (million) 

Per company (euros) 

One-off 

Recurrent (annual) 

One-off 

Recurrent (annual) 

 525|536  

 752|764  

 740|752  

 388|398  

 52|62  

 102|120  

 96|112  

 23|28  

 13301|13656  

 4919|6965  

 27701|28445  

 10628|15065  

 1465|1493  

 93.7|110.1  

 729|749  

 556|568  

 38.3|47.8  

 64|78  

SME 

 3684.5|3763.5  

Manufacturers 

 732.6|744.6  

Service Providers 

 1278|1298.6  

Retailers 

 1674|1720.3  

Large Enterprises 

 225.5|231.5  

Manufacturers 

 215.8|221.6  

Service Providers 

Retailers 

TOTAL 

 5.9|6  

 3.8|3.9  

 364|433  

 99|117  

 166|193  

 99|123  

 83|118  

 83|117  

 0.4|0.4  

 0.2|0.2  

 3910|3995  

 447|551  

83 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
3. 

Relevant sustainable development goals 

Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s) 
Relevant SDG 

Expected progress towards the Goal 

Comments 

SDG  no.  12  –  ensure 
sustainable consumption 
and production patterns 

This initiative is expected to lead to an increase in 
the  purchase  of  products  with  longer  durability 
and better reparability,  which do not deceive  the 
consumer  as  to  their  environmental  impact,  and 
which  do  not  fail  earlier  than  expected.  The 
initiative  is expected to better protect consumers 
against against unfair commercial practices, such 
as greenwashing, early obsolescence of consumer 
goods or non-transparent voluntary sustainability 
labels and digital information tools, which are not 
compatible with the green transition. 

SDG no. 13 – climate action  This initiative is expected to lead to a saving of 5 

- 7 MtCO2e over a period of 15 years. 

84 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

This annex provides information on the methods used in this Impact Assessment, namely: 
- 
On the calculation of consumer detriment and environmental impacts; 
- 
On  the  selection  of  the  impacts  against  which  the  options  are  assessed  and 
explanation on how the assessment is performed (including the approach to the monetisation 
of costs and benefits); 
- 
analysis.  

On the comparison of the options by way of a cost-benefit analysis and multi-criteria 

1. 

Selection of criteria and sub-criteria for assessing the impacts of the policy 
options  

1.1. 

Identification of impacts 

In line with the European Commission’s guidance on Impact Assessment (as set out in the 
‘Better Regulation Guidelines,’), all of the impacts (potentially) associated with the selected 
options/ options were identified (0). The process of identifying impacts was mainly informed 
by the literature review and stakeholder consultation. It also drew on expert input/ judgment.  

The  starting  point  for  the  development  of  the  ‘long  list’  of  impacts  was  the  “impacts 
checklist,” as set out in the ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’ (Tool #19). This was based on an 
in-depth analysis and understanding of all available evidence, which in turn minimised the 
risk of failing to consider potentially significant impacts. Specifically, the identification of 
impacts accounted for:  

-  Positive and negative impacts;  
-  Direct and indirect effects (stemming from changes in costs and product substitution); 
- 
Intended and unintended consequences. Specifically, intended consequences include: 
benefits for consumer protection and the Single Market, while possible unintended 
consequences could include: impacts on the structure of the market;  

-  Short and long -term effects – e.g. short-term costs of providing information and long-

term costs of reformulating products and/or commitments.  

impacts 

direct 

Specific 
considered 
■  Business substantive 
compliance costs  
■  Business administrative 

burdens 

■  Enforcement costs for 

administration 

■  Consumer prices and 

choices 

■  Consumer decision making 

process 

Table 1. ‘Long list’ of impacts 

Impact type 

Economic 
Impacts 

Long  list  of  impacts  drawing  on 
Commission IA guidelines 

■  Growth and investment  
■  Trade and investment flows  
■  Facilitating SMEs growth  
■  Costs of business 
■  Functioning of the Internal 
Market and competition  
■  Increased innovation and 

research  

■  Technological development  
■  Increased international 
trade and investment 
Consumer and households 

85 

 
 
■  Consumer trust 
■  Consumer protection 

Social Impacts 

Environmental 
impacts 

■  Public authorities (and 

budgets) 

■  Employment  
■  Income distribution and 

social inclusion 
■  Health & safety  
■  Education  
■  Governance & good 
administration  

■  Social protection, health 
and educational systems  

■  Cultural heritage 

n/a 

■  The climate change  
■  Fostering the efficient use 
of resources (renewable & 
non-renewable)  
■  Quality of natural 

resources/fighting pollution 
(water, soil, air etc.)  
■  Reducing and managing 

waste 

■  Protecting biodiversity, 

flora, fauna and landscapes  
■  Minimizing environmental 

risks 

Overarching 
Impacts 

■  Economic and social 

■  Application of the EU legal 

cohesion  

■  Impacts in developing 

countries  

■  Sustainable development  
■  Fundamental Rights 

consumer framework 

Source: ICF elaboration based on Better Regulation Guidelines (Toolbox #19) 

1.2. 

Screening of impacts 

The significance of social, economic, and environmental (direct and indirect) impacts that 
the policy options may entail for the various stakeholders was assessed on the basis of: 

-  Their expected magnitude – taking into account the likely scale of impacts (i.e. the extent 
of resulting costs and benefits), the number of businesses and consumers affected, and 
the extent of change expected; 

-  Their likelihood – taking into account available evidence on the probability of positive 
and negative impacts/ effects occurring, and prioritising those impacts for which there is 
robust evidence as opposed to those subject to less informed speculation. 

-  Their relevance to stakeholders – taking into account existing views provided by relevant 
stakeholder  groups,  additional  insights/  judgments  expressed  during  the  stakeholder 
consultation; and 

86 

 
-  Their link to Commission objectives, i.e., the extent to which each of the selected impacts 
is aligned with the objectives of the initiative (as it was important to ensure that all of the 
impacts that directly link to the objectives of the initiative were included). 

The  assessment  was  done  while  taking  into  account  the  views  of  stakeholders  gathered 
through  extensive  consultations  as  well  as  evidence  collected  through  desk  research  and 
validated  by  selected  independent  experts.  The  result  of  the  assessment,  i.e.  the  final/ 
screened list of impacts to be investigated further, is provided in 0 overleaf.  

Many  of  the  screened  impacts  are  inter-related,  with  some  impacts  being  the  causes  or 
consequences of others. For example, growth/ investment is clearly a highly relevant policy 
impact;  however,  it  is  influenced  by  all  of  the  other  economic  factors,  such  as  sectoral 
competitiveness,  SME  growth,  the  functioning  of  the  Single  Market,  innovation  and 
research, technological development, international trade and investment, and competition. 
The screening process has therefore attempted to distinguish between those impacts which 
occur directly and those which may occur indirectly, i.e. as a result of other impacts.  

The  selected  impacts  vary  across  the  different  policy  options,  notably  in  terms  of  their 
likelihood and significance. However, most impacts are relevant across the different policy 
options/ options. Screening was therefore undertaken for the options collectively (including 
the baseline) rather than individually, with a view to assessing in more detail (at a later stage 
in  the  Impact  Assessment)  any  differences  in  (the  extent/  magnitude  of)  the  impacts 
associated with the different options. An impact was retained for further analysis if it was 
deemed ‘relevant’ and expected to be of a magnitude of ”●●” (at a minimum) for at least 
one of the proposed policy options.  

87 

 
Table 2. Significance of impacts for all the policy options under consideration 

Key: ‘●’ low; ‘●●’ moderate; ‘●●●’ high 

Impact type 

Expected 
magnitude 

Likelihood 

Relevance for 
stakeholders 

Link with the 
objectives 
() 

Comment 

Retained 
() 

Economic impacts 

Growth and investment ● 

●● 

●● 

Sectoral competitiveness, 
trade and investment 
flows 

● 

●● 

●● 

SMEs growth

●● 

●●● 

●●● 

Functioning of the Single 
Market

●● 

●● 

●●● 

 

88 

Growth and investment are EU policy priorities, and any 
potential impacts need to be considered carefully. The 
foreseen measures may require investment in repair 
services, product development and new production 
processes, but may (indirectly) entail adverse impacts, in 
the form of costs for business and the public sector and 
reduction of sales. These impacts are considered under 
other impact categories below (see “business substantive 
compliance costs,” “business administrative burdens,” 
“enforcement costs for administration”). 

Some options could impact business costs and, 
consequently, competitiveness (see further below 
“business substantive compliance costs,” “business 
administrative burdens,” “enforcement costs for 
administration”).  

SMEs account for the majority of businesses in the EU. The 
options will therefore potentially impact large numbers of 
SMEs (as producers), although possibly negatively, as they 
may lead to an increase in businesses’ operational costs. 
Furthermore, SMEs with fewer resources may face greater 
challenges in adapting to new rules/ requirements as 
opposed to large companies. 

There are currently some differences in approaches related 
to obsolescence, greenwashing, sustainability labels/logos 
and information to consumers in different Member States. 
One of the arguments for action at EU level would be to 
harmonise regulatory approaches across the Single Market. 
The initiative is expected to contribute to creating a level-

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact type 

Expected 
magnitude 

Likelihood 

Relevance for 
stakeholders 

Link with the 
objectives 
() 

Comment 

Retained 
() 

Increased innovation and 
research and 
Technological 
development

Increased international 
trade and investment

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Business substantive 
compliance costs

●●● 

●●● 

●●● 

Business administrative 
burden

●●● 

●●● 

●●● 

Costs for public 
authorities 

●● 

●●● 

●●● 

Consumer detriment

●●●

●●●

●●● 



Consumer prices and 
choices

Consumer decision 
making process

●● 

●●● 

●● 

●●● 

●●● 

●●● 

 

89 

playing field for producers and reducing, to some extent, 
barriers to cross-border trade. 

Options stimulating improvements in products’ durability/ 
lifespans, reparability and sustainability may stimulate 
innovation and technological development. However, this 
may also entail additional investments/ costs for 
businesses (see further below: “business substantive 
compliance costs,” “business administrative burdens”). 

The options are expected to have a very limited impact on 
trade. 

Businesses will incur direct costs redesigning products and 
procedures to ensure they comply with the measures 
related to premature/planned obsolescence and to the 
criteria for logos. These costs may vary by option.  

 

The effectiveness of the options will depend on the transfer 
of information between the authorities, businesses and 
consumers. This may require substantial effort and time – 
i.e., from having to understand the rules, formulate 
appropriate responses, and monitor and report on 
progress. This could potentially result in important 
administrative burdens for businesses. 

Public authorities will have to monitor and enforce the 
measures as well as handle specific cases of non-
compliance. These actions will likely impose certain costs 
on public authorities. 

Some options will contribute to a reduction in consumer 
detriment, as currently experienced by many consumers 
owing to sub-optimal choices being made and/ or the early 
failure of products. 

The options may have an impact on product availability, 
prices and, ultimately, the volume of sales. 

 

 

 

 

The options will likely improve the availability of 
information to consumers, reduce information asymmetries   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact type 

Expected 
magnitude 

Likelihood 

Relevance for 
stakeholders 

Link with the 
objectives 
() 

Comment 

Retained 
() 

Social Impacts 

Employment

●

●

● 

Income distribution and 
social inclusion

●

●

● 

Health (& safety)

●

●

● 

Education

●

●

●● 

and therefore contribute to enhancing consumers’ decision-
making process. Consideration will however be given to the 
potential negatives effects of providing too much 
information which could lead to an information overload 
and, thus, increased confusion among consumers. 

Enhancing employment is a key policy priority for the EU. 
No evidence was found of an immediate effect of any of the 
proposed measures on employment. Jobs will potentially 
be impacted indirectly through changes in business costs, 
competitiveness and investment. Cost increase may 
translate into some job losses but that this is hard to 
quantify and in addition, there may be a positive job 
impact due to the increase in consumer confidence and 
trust as well as an increased level playing field (all leading 
to less transaction costs and an increase of allocative 
efficiency as untrustworthy companies and practices are 
penalised).  

Actions to limit premature obsolescence are expected to 
have a greater impact on consumers of goods of lower 
price ranges. On the one hand, lower-priced goods might 
have their lifespan increased and, hence, their life-cycle 
costs (for more vulnerable consumers) reduced. On the 
other hand, owing to their enhanced qualities, the price of 
these goods might increase.  

Climate change and negative environmental impacts can 
strongly impact people’s health. Options contributing to a 
reduction in the environmental impacts of consumption are 
expected to have a positive impact on public health. This 
effect will be partially covered when assessing the impact 
of the proposed measures in the environment. 

The options are not expected to impact education; 
however, consumer awareness is a significant issue, 
particularly with respect to its role in changing 
consumption patterns and therefore contributing to the 











90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact type 

Expected 
magnitude 

Likelihood 

Relevance for 
stakeholders 

Link with the 
objectives 
() 

Comment 

Retained 
() 

Governance & good 
administration

●

●

●● 

Social protection, health 
and educational systems



Cultural heritage











Consumer trust

●●

●●●

●●● 

Consumer protection

●●

●●●

●●● 

Environmental Impacts   

Fighting climate change ●● 

●●● 

●●● 

Other environmental 
impacts including 

●● 

●●● 

●●● 











 

 

91 

green transition. This potential change in consumer 
awareness/ education will be addressed when assessing 
the impacts entailed by the proposed measures on 
consumer trust/ protection. 

This is closely related to the issue of administrative burden, 
which is listed under economic impacts above and can be 
considered alongside that issue. 

No distinct issues related to social protection, health and 
educational systems were identified, other than impacts on 
consumer health and awareness (as identified above). 

No distinct issues related to cultural heritage were 
identified, other than impacts on consumer choice and 
awareness (as identified above). 

Some options will likely contribute to increasing consumer 
trust (as a result of the improved quality of the information 
provided and providing reassurance about the quality of 
the products purchased), which would help improve their 
subjective well-being. 

The options will contribute to strengthening consumer 
protection, reducing the potential for consumer harm/ 
detriment and leading to an overall increase in consumers’ 
well-being. 

Some options will help bring about a reduction in purchase 
frequency, given that products will not have to be replaced 
frequently as before, as well as an increase in the share of 
the market accounted for by more environmentally- 
friendly products. This in turn is expected to contribute to 
reducing the CO2 equivalent emissions associated with 
consumption. 

 

 

 

Some options will help bring about a reduction in purchase 
frequency, given that products will not have to be replaced   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact type 

Expected 
magnitude 

Likelihood 

Relevance for 
stakeholders 

Link with the 
objectives 
() 

Comment 

Retained 
() 

fostering the efficient use 
of resources (renewable & 
non-renewable)

Protecting biodiversity, 
flora, fauna and 
landscapes

● 

● 

● 

as frequently as before, as well as an increase in the share 
of the market accounted for by more environmentally- 
friendly products. This in turn is expected to contribute to 
reducing the use of resources and/or fostering a more 
efficient use of resources. 

Some options will help bring about a reduction in purchase 
frequency, given that products will not have to be replaced 
as frequently as before, as well as an increase in the share 
of the market accounted for by more environmentally- 
friendly products. This in turn is expected to contribute to 
protecting biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes. 

Principal environmental risks relate to climate change and 
efficient use of resources – as identified above. 

Minimizing environmental 
risks

Overarching impacts 

Application of the EU legal 
consumer framework 

Economic and social 
cohesion

Sustainable development 
and circular economy

Fundamental Rights

Individuals, private and 
family life, freedom of 
conscience and 
expression

●● 

● 

●● 

●●● 

●●● 

● 

● 

●●● 

●●● 

 

 

Some options will help ensure a better and more coherent 
application of the EU legal framework for consumer 
protection. 

 

Economic and social cohesion will potentially be indirectly 
impacted by other impacts identified above. 

Options will contribute to the circular economy and to 
sustainable development (to one or more of the three 
pillars economic, environment and social) will potentially 
be indirectly impacted by a number of other impacts 
described above. 

 

Not identified as a potentially significant impact category in 
the literature or stakeholder consultations.  









Not identified as a potentially significant impact category in 
the literature or stakeholder consultations. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact type 

Expected 
magnitude 

Likelihood 

Relevance for 
stakeholders 

Link with the 
objectives 
() 

Comment 

Retained 
() 

Property rights and the 
right to conduct a 
business









Not identified as a potentially significant impact category in 
the literature or stakeholder consultations. 

93 

 
 
 
Based  on  the  screening  assessment,  the  following  potentially  significant  impacts  were 
identified as priorities for more detailed analysis:  

A. 
Consumer benefits and losses, including the following sub-categories of impacts: 
-  Consumer detriment and other gains and losses (due, for example, to changes in prices 

and choices); 

Functioning of the Single Market, which includes the following sub-categories of 

Costs to companies and impact on SMEs, which includes the following sub-

-  Quality of the decision-making process; 
-  Consumer protection; and 
-  Consumer trust. 
B. 
impacts: 
- 
Impact on the level-playing field; and 
-  Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade. 
C. 
categories of impacts: 
-  Administrative burdens; 
-  Substantive compliance costs; 
- 
-  SME growth. 
D. 
-  Enforcement costs; and 
-  Other costs 
E. 
-  Circularity and Sustainable Consumption; 
-  Climate change; and 
-  Other environmental impacts. 
F. 
-  Any impact on enforcement and harmonisation of approaches across the EU. 

Sustainability, which includes the following sub-categories of impacts: 

Application of the EU legal consumer framework, which includes: 

Costs to public bodies, including the following sub-categories of impacts: 

Indirect costs; and 

The table below sets out the impacts that were selected, the stakeholder group(s) affected 
and the general approach used to assess them. It is important to highlight that the impacts of 
the options might differ between product categories. This is highlighted when relevant.

94 

 
Table 3. Selected significant impacts 

Main category of impacts 

Consumer benefits and losses 
Functioning of the EU internal market 
Costs to companies and impact on SMEs 
Costs to public bodies 
Sustainability 
Application  of 
framework 

the  EU 

legal  consumer 

Affected parties 

Assessment 

s
n
e
z
i
t
i

C

s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
C

e
g
r
a
l
d
n
a

s
E
M
S
(

)
s
e
s
i
r
p
r
e
t
n
e

s
e
s
i
r
p
r
e
t
n
e
g
n
i
y
l
p
m
o
C

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

e
g
r
a
l
d
n
a

s
E
M
S
(

s
e
s
i
r
p
r
e
t
n
e
g
n
i
y
l
p
m
o
c
-
n
o
N

X 
X 

X 

X 

,

U
E
(

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
i
m
d
a

c
i
l
b
u
P

X 
X 

X 

)
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c
d
r
i
h
T

e
r
u
t
a
N

X 

X 

e
v
i
t
a
t
i
t
n
a
u
Q

partial 

partial 
partial 
partial 

e
v
i
t
a
t
i
l
a
u
Q

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

Impacts on Third Countries 

As can be seen from the above table, apart from the impacts on sustainability, the corresponding impacts on Third Countries were considered minor 
and therefore not selected in the screening of the impacts. This is due to the fact that it can be estimated that the level playing field established by 
this initiative would also bring benefits to businesses located in Third Countries, as those businesses that currently mislead consumers would also 
have to align their practices with those that are truly sustainable in order to sell their products on the EU market in conformity with the measures 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
selected. Furthermore, none of the policy options considered would negatively impact trade from Third Countries, as the options considered are of 
such a nature as to be able to be complied with by traders located in Third Countries on the same basis as traders located within the EU. 

96 

 
2. 

General approach to assess the various impacts 

All selected impacts were assessed in a qualitative and quantitative way. The quantitative 
assessment was done by monetisation when possible and otherwise by scores. 

The monetisation involved assigning a monetary value to benefits or losses experienced 
by stakeholders. When possible, the analysis relied on data from various sources, including 
statistics,  studies,  the  consumer  survey,  the  CATI  survey  and  the  mystery  shopping 
exercise  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this  study.  The  available  data  frequently  did  not 
(entirely)  cover  the  needs  of  the  analysis,  and  in  that  situation,  it  was  necessary  to 
extrapolate the data or fill in data gaps using expert judgment by the supporting study core 
team and a panel of experts, drawing from other sources of information such as the results 
of the surveys, interviews, and workshops with stakeholders.  

Given the uncertainty surrounding many parameters, in the analysis, they were defined as 
distribution functions rather than single values145. In addition, scenarios were defined for 
most of the measures to describe possible responses of consumers and/or businesses, and 
the monetised impacts were obtained by running Monte Carlo simulations. The input data 
limitations were reflected in the analysis by presenting the output as a range rather than 
single values; nevertheless, the results should be taken with caution and seen as indicative 
of the scale of the impacts.     

The approach and assumptions to the monetisation of benefits and costs of each measure 
are described below.  

The scores were assigned with input of the supporting study core team, and validated by a 
panel  of experts, reflecting the  findings of desk  research  and stakeholder consultations, 
including  targeted  interviews,  consumer  survey  and  the  results  of  the  stakeholder 
workshop. 

3. 

Socio-economic impacts  

Consumer’s benefits and losses 

Consumer detriment and other gains and losses 
This  impact  was  assessed  quantitatively  and  qualitatively.  The  quantitative  assessment 
involved the monetisation of the incremental changes to the consumer detriment as a result 
of the implementation of a given option (which are expected to be positive) and is based 
mostly on the results of the contingency valuation of specific products obtained through 
the  consumer  survey  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this  study  (with  a  sample  of  11  800 
respondents) complemented with data from other sources when necessary). See supporting 
study for an overview of the product scope.  

The monetisation follows the following steps: 
1. Modelling of the expected changes in the market due to a given option. For example, 
certain  information  becomes  available  for  certain  products,  whereas  in  the  baseline  it 

145  

Either Triangular distribution function of Uniform depending on the parameter.  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
would not be, or the share of products that fail prematurely decreases (as compared to the 
baseline) as a consequence of banning certain practices. 
2. Modelling of the expected changes in the consumer behaviour resulting from the option. 
For example, the share of consumers interested in (and willing to pay for) products with 
longer lifespans will be (to some extent) able to do so (as compared to the baseline). Or, 
as another example, consumers purchase products that do not fail earlier than reasonably 
expected (whereas in the baseline they unknowingly would). 
3.  Monetising  the  expected  benefits  that  those  changes  will  bring  to  consumers.  The 
specific approach depends on the option and on the availability of data, and could be: 
a) Estimating the incremental consumer surplus, relying on data on willingness to pay: for 
those  consumers  that  changed  their  consumption  behaviour  as  a  result  of  the  option, 
calculate the difference between what consumers are willing to pay - for example, for an 
additional year of guaranteed lifespan - and the price premium they effectively had to pay. 
b) Estimating the incremental consumer surplus, relying on the price of goods and their 
increased  extended  lifespan:  for  those  consumers  that  changed  their  consumption 
behaviour as a result of the option, calculate the difference between what consumers gained 
(i.e., the price of the goods divided by the incremental duration of the good) and the price 
premium they effectively had to pay. 
c)  Estimating  the  avoided  personal  revealed  detriment  related  to  repair  of  products  (if 
repairing becomes easier and less burdensome as a result of an option) or related to having 
bought a product (and paid a price premium) based on certain information that was not 
correct. 
d) Estimating the stated benefits of an option based on consumer’s stated willingness to 
pay for having that option implemented. 

The estimations, while providing a sense of the magnitude of the benefits for consumers, 
have limitations: 

-  Anecdotal data on consumer preferences and detriment for some product groups 

and unavailability of data for other product groups (s-p 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3); 

- 

-  For some problems, there was the need to focus on a sub-set of product groups due 
to the lack of data on other product categories. This means that the results do not 
cover all products in scope of the measure. For others, we could only assess the 
measure for high-level product categories due to lack of data. 
In most of the cases the products covered in the consumer survey were only a sub-
set of the products that exist in a certain product category, which required us to 
extrapolate the results of the assessment for the individual products to the product 
category, assuming that the products would represent to some extent the average 
product in that category. Without such assumption the assessment would have not 
been  possible  (given  that  the  measure  is  a  horizontal  one)  but  constitutes  an 
important  limitation  of  the  assessment.  While  this  issue  was  not  raised  by  the 
stakeholder consulted, the characteristics between goods and services can indeed 
impact the effectiveness of various measures.  

-  Discrepancies between consumer statements and “real-life” behaviours; 
-  Difficulties in assessing the variation in the average sustainability of the products 
purchased and the average lifespan and reparability of the goods purchased as a 
result of a certain measure. 

In order to mitigate these limitations, Monte Carlo simulations have been carried out and 
the benefits have been assessed in the supporting study for at least two scenarios for the 
expected  effectiveness  of  each  option  low-moderate  and  moderate-high  (which  will 
depend  on  factors  specific  of  each  measure,  such  as  compliance  levels,  change  in  the 

98 

 
 
behaviour of suppliers, impact on comparability of information). The present IA, however, 
only reports on the moderate-high scenario for ease of reading.  

Quality of the decision-making process 
This impact assesses to what extent an option leads to a situation where consumers have 
more and better information to take decisions and can more/less easily compare goods or 
services on offer (taking into account information overload, for example). Improving the 
decision-making process may lead to changes in behaviour (and to a reduction in consumer 
detriment) or not, but it can also lead to an improvement in the subjective wellbeing of 
consumers. This is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from zero to ten. 
This  impact  is  one  of  the  components  of  the  specific  objective  “Enable  informed 
purchasing decisions by consumers to foster sustainable consumption”.  

Consumer protection 
This impact assesses to what extent an option increases consumer protection in general. 
This will be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from zero to ten. Please 
note  that  this  impact  is  in  part  covered  by  the  monetisation  of  the  consumer  revealed 
detriment. 
This impact is one of the components of the specific objective “Eliminate untrustworthy 
practices that run against sustainable economy and mislead consumers”. 

Consumer trust 
This impact assesses to what extent an option increases the trust of consumers in the market 
by  putting  in  place  effective  mechanisms  to  prevent  and  penalise  misleading  practices. 
This is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from zero to ten. 
This impact is one of the components of the specific objective “Eliminate untrustworthy 
practices that run against sustainable economy and mislead consumers”. 

Functioning of the Single Market 

Some options will contribute to reducing the practice of unfair commercial practices and 
harmonise the rules across Member States (leading to legal certainty and lower barriers to 
cross-border  trade),  and  consequently,  contribute  to  the  improved  functioning  of  the 
internal market. 

Level playing-field 
This  impact  assesses  to  what  extent  an  option  creates  a  more  level  playing  field  with 
regards  to  product  lifespan,  reparability  and  sustainability.  This  will  be  assessed 
qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from zero to ten. 
This impact is one of the components of the specific objective “Eliminate untrustworthy 
practices that run against sustainable economy and mislead consumers”. 

Barriers to cross-border trade 
Lack  of  harmonised  rules  across  the  EU  can  lead  to  extra  costs  and  difficulties  for 
companies trading in  other Member States,  in  particular, if those companies are SMEs. 
The options aim to harmonise rules in various areas and reduce legal uncertainty, possibly 
reduce  duplication  of  costs  and  reduce  barriers  to  cross-border  trade.  This  is  assessed 
qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from zero to ten. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Costs to companies and Impact on SMEs 

The  costs  were  calculated  for  SMEs  and  Large  enterprises  separately  and  also  for 
manufacturers, service providers and retailers separately (in for some sub-problems  per 
large  product  groups  large  household  appliances,  small  household  appliances,  ICT  and 
other electronic products, furniture, clothes). Within each category, we calculated the costs 
for an “average company” producing and/or selling an “average good or service”. 
The  cost  estimations,  while  providing  a  sense  of  the  magnitude  of  the  benefits  for 
consumers, have limitations: 

-  Need to  focus on a sub-set of product  groups in  the case of some measures and 
need to carry out the estimations at a very high level for other measures as a result 
of lack of data. 

-  Costs  are  estimated  for  an  average  company  per  category.  Companies  are  very 
different from each other and this assumption is, therefore, a simplification of the 
complex landscape of businesses across the EU. 

-  Costs are estimated for an average good or products. While such assumption was 
required to carry out the assessment of the initiative given its horizontal approach, 
it can affect the assessment. Differences in the characteristics of goods and services 
can  affect  the  unit  costs.  For  example,  the  incorporated  technologies  and  the 
number of components in the product can influence the costs of lifespan tests or 
the time required to develop a repair manual. Another example is the fact that the 
complexity of the supply chain might have an impact on the cost of a PEF study. 
While the stakeholder consultations have not identified product categories / sectors 
suffering  disproportionate  impacts,  based  on  literature  review  the  study  team 
expects  that  for  sectors  related  to  product  categories  for  which  products  are 
significantly  different  from  each  other  and  are  constantly  changing  due  often  to 
fashion  (e.g.,  clothes,  decoration  objects  and  to  a  lesser  extent  furniture)  all 
measures  might  have  a  more  disproportionate  impact.  Products  with  complex 
supply chains will also suffer disproportionate effects of measures related to the 
assessment of their sustainability performance.  

-  Lack of data on the effective direct costs for companies as during the consultations, 
companies declined to provide an estimation to those costs and the desk research 
did  not  provide  all  the  required  data.  In  the  study,  we  have  interviewed  a  few 
companies146  that  provided  some  pointers  regarding  the  incremental  number  of 
hours  most  measures  would  require  for  each  of  the  aforementioned  cost  items. 
Based on expert judgment (in the context of the study this means the core study 
team plus three external experts) we used these pointers to set the costs. 

-  These limitations were mitigated to an extent in the cost assessment by assuming 
that some assumptions  of the quantitative analysis follow a uniform  distribution 
with a minimum and a maximum value.  

Administrative burden 
Options will impose information obligations to business (some to manufacturers, others to 
traders). These information obligations may lead to increased costs to businesses related 
to: 

146  The  companies  were  from  Portugal,  Sweden  and  Belgium.  Three  were  three  large  enterprises  and  two  micro 
enterprises. We gathered the data under the commitment that we would not disclose their names. 

100 

 
 
 
                                                           
-  Familiarising with the information obligation 
-  Training members and employees about the information obligations 
-  Retrieving relevant information from existing data and adjusting existing data 
-  Producing new data 
-  Designing information material (e.g. leaflet conception) and Copying (reproducing 

reports, producing labels or leaflets) 

-  Filling forms and tables (including recordkeeping) and submitting the information 

- 

to the relevant authority (e.g. sending it to the relevant authority) 
Inspecting and checking (including assistance to inspection by public authorities) 
and holding meetings (internal/external with an auditor, lawyer etc.)  

-  Buying (IT) equipment & supplies (e.g. labelling machines) to specifically used to 

fulfil information obligations 

The extent of the impact depends on which activities would be done even in the absence 
of the option, i.e., at the baseline. These costs are assessed following the EU Standard Cost 
Model as described in Tool #60. 

Substantive compliance costs 
These  are  the  incremental  (i.e.  non-business  as  usual)  costs  (other  than  fees  and 
administrative  burden)  to  manufacturers  in  order  to  comply  with  the  option  related  to 
banning practices of premature obsolescence and to label, logo and certification manager 
in order to comply with the option on minimum criteria for labels and logos. These include 
implementation  costs,  direct  labour  costs,  equipment  costs,  material  costs  and  cost  of 
external services. 
The monetisation of the costs of producing products that do not fail earlier than reasonably 
expected is extremely challenging as it depends on the products and on reasons causing 
early failure and due to lack of data on unit costs. This was done by screening the prices 
of  various  product  types  on  online  marketplaces,  identifying  the  price  of  the  cheapest 
product, and then assume that it will cost between 7.5% to 15% extra to comply with the 
measure  and  improve  the  product  accordingly.147  This  is  a  significant  limitation  of  the 
quantification of substantive costs. 

Indirect costs 
The market dynamic may also lead to companies to adapt their products/commitments in 
other to remain competitive. These adjustments will often have an impact on the operating 
costs  to  those  companies  (which  are  indirect  costs  of  the  option).  These  costs  will  be 
assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from zero to ten.  

SME growth 
The  aforementioned  costs  might  hinder  the  growth  of  SMEs  and  may  render  some  not 
viable any longer. The unbalance between the relative impact of the options on SMEs and 
on larger enterprises is particularly higher for those options that impose costs per product 
model since, in general, the sales volume per model is generally lower for SMEs than it is 
for  larger  enterprises.  These  costs  are  assessed  qualitatively  and  quantitatively  using  a 
score from zero to ten.    

147  
distribution (0.075, 0.15). 

This was incorporated in the quantitative analysis by ensuring that the costs of improving follow a uniform 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Costs for public authorities 

All  instrument  will  impose  enforcement  costs.  Enforcement  costs  include  the  cost  of 
monitoring  and  enforcing  compliance  with  new 
requirements  as  well  as 
adjudication/litigation costs. The latter refers to the costs of using the legal system, or an 
alternative dispute resolution mechanism, to solve disagreements or disputes generated by 
the new requirements. 
This impact is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. The estimations have limitations 
due to the lack of specific data on the additional resources that the option will require. The 
gaps were addressed by using data from similar studies and relying on data provided by 
some CPC authorities. 
The approach to the quantification and monetisation of these costs is in line with the EU 
Standard Cost Model as described in Tool #60 and will cover: 

-  Familiarisation with the new option and training of staff;  
-  Monitoring  costs:  these  are  equal  to  the  estimated  costs  with  human  resources 
needed  to  monitor  the  new  instrument  (which  are  equal  to  (a)  the  estimated 
additional  time  (days  or  hours)  devoted  to  monitoring  compliance  with  the  new 
instrument  on  an  annual  basis  time  (b)  the  forecasted  average  salary  of  staff 
involved in monitoring compliance) plus any other incremental expense that may 
be incurred in  monitoring  compliance,  e.g. mystery shopping exercises,  sweeps, 
etc. 

-  Enforcement  costs:  these  are  equal  to  the  estimated  costs  with  human  resources 
needed  to  enforce  the  new  instrument  (which  are  equal  to  (a)  the  estimated 
additional time (days or hours) devoted to enforcement activities related to the new 
instrument  on  an  annual  basis  time  (b)  the  forecasted  average  salary  of  staff 
involved in enforcement activities) plus any other incremental expense that may be 
incurred in monitoring compliance minus the incremental volume of fines collected 
if policy intervention is implemented. 

-  Complaint, adjudication and case handling costs: these are equal to the estimated 
costs with human resources needed to handle complaints and cases by ADR bodies 
and by courts. 

Environmental impacts 

Climate change 
All  options  are  expected  to  lead  to  a  reduction  of  the  CO2  equivalent  emissions  of 
consumption either by reducing the replacement rate of goods or by increasing the market 
share of “truly” sustainable products. 
This impact is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. The estimations have significant 
shortcomings due to limited data on the current CO2 equivalent emissions of all products 
(and  per  product  type)  and  difficulties  in  assessing  the  variation  in  the  average 
sustainability of the products purchased and the average lifespan and reparability of the 
goods purchased as a result of a certain instrument. 
The approach to the quantification of impacts is done by estimating the “avoided CO2e 
emission”  as  a  result  of  new  consumption  patterns  elicited  by  a  given  option  and  the 
shadow carbon price.  
Given the data limitations, these calculations were not possible for sub-problems 2.2 and 
2.3. 

Other Environmental Impacts 

102 

 
 
 
The impact of the measures on electrical and electronic equipment waste and on preventing 
premature deaths will be also be monetised. As above, the estimation have limitations and 
were not performed for measures related to sub-problems 2.2 and 2.3. Other impacts as 
will be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively (in a score from 0 to 10) but not monetised. 
As above, the estimation have limitations. 

Overarching impacts 

Circularity and sustainable consumption 
This impact will assess to what extent an option will contribute to a more circular economy 
and more sustainable economy (considering the three pillars economic, environmental and 
social). This impact is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from zero to 
ten.    
This  impact  is  one  of  the  components  of  the  specific  objectives  “Enable  informed 
purchasing  decisions  by  consumers  to  foster  sustainable  consumption”  and  “Eliminate 
untrustworthy practices that run against sustainable economy and mislead consumers”. 

Application of the EU legal consumer framework 
The options will contribute to improving the application and enforcement of the EU legal 
consumer framework. This is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using a score from 
zero to ten. 
This impact corresponds to one of the three specific objectives of the initiative. 

4. 

Approach to monetisation of costs and benefits 

In this section, we describe the approach and assumptions used to estimate the monetisable 
costs to businesses and enforcement authorities and the monetisable impact on consumer 
welfare (personal detriment and surplus) for each sub-problem. 

4.1.  General assumptions 

Assumption 

Source 

Cost of labour (EU-27 
average) 

Manager: EUR 41.5/h 
Other employees: EUR 27.70/h 
2019 prices 

Eurostat148 

Sales  in  EUROS  and 
Volume 

Presented in the annex with the overview of 
the market 

Statista (up to 2025) and ICF 
projections (until 2050) 

Number 
companies 

of 

- 

Eurostat 
Annual  enterprise  statistics 
for  special 
by  size  class 
activities 
aggregates 
(NACE 
2) 
[SBS_SC_SCA_R2]149 

of 
Rev. 

148 See Eurostat, Hourly labour costs: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Hourly_labour_costs 
149 
2021: 
Population 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=proj_19np&lang=en 

Eurostat, 

January 

1st 

on 

of 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Population 

- 

Shadow 
CO2e 

price 

of 

34 EUR/tonne 

of 

CO2e/kg 
production 
equipment 
Value  of  Statistical 
(million  euros 
life 
2019) 

Costs  of 
waste (euros) 

treating 

Overall 
environmental 
impacts 
consumption 

of 

36 kg CO2e/Kg  

The  monetised  value  of  a  premature  death 
follows a uniform distribution with a lower limit 
of  3.93  million  EUR  and  an  upper  limit  of 
5.63153 million EUR. 

0.45 EUR/Kg 

- 

Eurostat 
Population on 1st January by 
type  of 
age,  sex,  and 
projection [PROJ_19NP]150 
High-Level  Commission  on 
Carbon  Prices  (i.e.,  EUR  34 
prices  2019).  See  N.  Stern 
and  J.  E.  Stiglitz  (2017). 
the  High‐Level 
Report  of 
Commission 
on  Carbon 
Prices. World Bank.151 
Adaptation of various studies 
covering specific products152 

The recommended values for 
the  VSL  vary  depending  on 
the  source.  We  adopted  the 
values  from  the  European 
Chemicals  Agency154  in  line 
recent  studies 
with  other 
carried out for DG JUST. 
Own calculations based desk 
research155 
COWI  &  ECOFYS,  2019156, 
determined  as  part  of  the 
Indicators  and  Assessment 
of  the  Environmental  Impact 
of EU by JRC. 

4.2. 

“Sub-problem  1.2:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  product’s 
lifespan” 

The monetisation was only possible for a selection of product categories (large household 
appliances, small household appliances and ICT and other electronic products) due to the 
lack of data regarding the volume of sales and about contingent valuation. Within each 
product category, the monetisation was firstly done for a selection of specific products for 

150  Eurostat,  Annual 

enterprise 

statistics 

by 

size 

class 

for 

special 

aggregates 

of 

activities, 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sbs_sc_sca_r2/default/table?lang=en 

of 

Washing 

151 Available at: https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/report-of-the-highlevel-commission-on-carbon-prices/ 
152 Andersen, O., Walnum, H.J. and Andrae, A., 2010.  Life Cycle Assessment of Electronics. Ugelstad-particles Ball 
Grid  Array  and  Chip  Scale  Packaging.  Vestlandsforsking,  Sogndal,  Norway,  6(10).;  Hu,  Allen  &  Lin,  Rong-Wei  & 
Huang, Ching-Yao & Wu, Chin-Lueng. (2012). Carbon Reduction Assessment of a Product Service System: A Case 
Study 
10.1007/978-94-007-3010-6_211.; 
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_may2019.pdf; 
https://www.apple.com/sg/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_8_PER_sept2017.pdf 
153 EUR 3.5 million (lower estimate) and EUR 5 million (higher estimate) (in EUR 2012); It was inflated by using the 
labour cost index. 
154 Kip W. Viscusi (2019), Identifying the legitimate role of the Value of a Statistical Life in Legal Contexts, Journal of 
Legal Economics 25(1-2), pp. 5-28; ECHA (2016), Reference willingness-to-pay values for monetizing chemicals health 
impacts,  pp.  1-8,  available  at:  https://echa.europa.eu/support/socio-economic-analysis-in-reach/willingness-to-pay-to-
avoid-certain-health-impacts. 
155 The Cost of Recycling E-Waste is becoming a Problem, https://sites.psu.edu/cstruthersblog/2016/04/27/the-cost-

Machines. 

of-recycling-e-waste-is-becoming-a-problem/; 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment//waste/studies/pdf/eucostwaste.pdf 

156  COWI  &  ECOFYS,  2019.  “Support  for  potential  policies  implementing  the  Environmental  Footprint  methods”. 
Confidential. 

104 

 
 
                                                           
which we had data from the consumer survey and mystery shopping exercises. Afterward 
the results obtained for the individual products were extrapolated to their product category. 
There  is  a  lack  of  data  regarding  the  lifespan  of  products  offered  in  the  market, 
consequently, we relied on desk research to define that the lifespan of the product models 
available in the market follow a truncated Gaussian distribution with parameters defined 
based on several sources157 

Option 1.2.A. EU-level obligation to inform consumers of the expected lifespan of 

products 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
(including 
data 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  
(one-off 
product model) 

new 

per 

This includes not only identifying the new 
obligations imposed by the measure but analysing 
what the necessary steps are that need to be 
taken to comply with it  
SME: [7,35]h legal team, 35h product development 
team, 7h commercial team 
Large Enterprises:  35h legal team, 70h product 
development team, 14h commercial team 
This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 

SME: 3.5h manager + 10.5h key employees 
Large  enterprises:  7h  managers  +  21h  key 

employees 

This includes identifying and compiling all the 
information available on expected lifespans and 
procedures followed to assess them, as well as 
adjusting current data and systems to be able to 
start providing this information 
SME: 4 weeks (35h X 4) of two employees working 
half-time a week, 140h 
Large enterprises: 4 weeks (35h X 4) of four 
employees working half-time a week, 280h 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews with 
companies and industry 
associations 

Interviews with 
companies and industry 
associations 

While the measure does not require the 
performance of tests to assess the lifespan of 
products, most companies will base their indication 
of the expected lifespan on some tests 

The number of current 
and new product models 
was based on the data 
from Impact Assessment 

and 

2017, 

dryers, 

washer 

available 

157  Including,  European  Commission,  JRC  Technical  reports,  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Label  for  Household  Washing 
https://www.applia-

machines 
europe.eu/images/Library/Preparatory_Study_on_Washing_Machines__Washer_Dryers_-_2017-
compress_compressed.pdf; F Sumasto et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 219 012008, available at:  
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/219/1/012008/pdf;  National  Association  of  Home 
Builders/Bank  of  America  Home  Equity,  Study  of  Life  Expectancy  of  Home  Components,  2007,  available  at: 
https://www.interstatebrick.com/sites/default/files/library/nahb20study20of20life20expectancy20of20home20
products; 
components.pdf; 
https://www.consumentenbond.nl/binaries/content/assets/cbhippowebsite/gidsen/digitaalgids/2016/nummer-
3---mei/dg201605p20_enquete_levensduur.pdf. 
https://www.consumentenbond.nl/binaries/content/assets/cbhippowebsite/gidsen/digitaalgids/2016/nummer-
3---mei/dg201605p20_enquete_levensduur.pdf. 

Consumer 

lifespan 

survey 

the 

on 

of 

at: 

105 

 
 
                                                           
Reports of the Ecodesign 
regulations158 
complemented by desk 
research of the offer of 
main online retailers in 
different EU countries 
and the results of the 
written interviews with a 
few companies. Because 
of the relative uncertainty 
about this data, in the 
analysis this follows a 
uniform distribution 
function, with lower and 
upper limits defined for 
each type of products 
and based on the 
collected evidence.  
The estimated costs of 
the tests were based on 
the views expressed by 
two experts and on an 
interview with a 
manufacturer 
complemented by the 
market data.159  

While  non-business  stakeholders  indicated 

that 
companies  already  perform  some  tests  to  assess 
the  lifespan  of  their  products,  consulted  business 
indicated 
the  case, 
consequently we considered three scenarios in the 
analysis to test if this would have an impact on the 
conclusions regarding the merit of the measure: 
- 25% of manufacturers already assess the lifespan 

is  not  always 

that 

it 

of their products 

- 50% of manufacturers already assess the lifespan 

of their products 

- 75% of manufacturers already assess the lifespan 

of their products 

The total costs with tests are equal to the unit cost of 
one test times the number of models in the market 
initially (for which an assessment of the lifespan has 
not been conducted, depends on the scenario) and 
then,  for  each  year,  the  number  of  new  models 
introduced  annually  (for  which  an  assessment  of 
the lifespan would have not been conducted in the 
baseline, depends on the scenario). 

The cost of testing one new product model:  

 Large household appliances: follows a triangular 

distribution function with minimum value of EUR 3 
200, peak value of six times the minimum number 
and maximum value of 12 times the minimum 
value. 

 Small household appliances: half of the costs for 

large household appliances. 

 ICT and other electronic products: as for the large 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

household appliances. 

and 

This includes: 

the costs of redesigning existing packages of 
a) 
the goods to include the information (one-off cost): 
7h per package model. 

b) 

the costs of printing stickers with the 
information for products in stock (which will be 
given to suppliers if needed). These costs are 
expected to be incurred in the 3 years after the 
implementation of the measure and will only 
continue beyond that for a small share of units (as 
a contingency in the analysis). The value is EUR 
0.3. 

Design costs: interviews 
with companies 
Cost of printing: Impact 
Assessment Reports of 
the Ecodesign 
regulations160 

158  European  Commission  register,  available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2019/EN/SWD-
2019-349-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-2.PDF; European Commission, SWD(2019) 347 final:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0347&from=EN; 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0354&from=EN;  European  Commission,  SWD(2019)  341  final: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0341&from=EN  
159http://www.atlete.eu/2/doc/Draft_GuidelinesRev4_october2013; 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2019/EN/SWD-2019-341-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF 
160 European Commission,  SWD(2019)349:  https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2019/EN/SWD-2019-
349-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-2.PDF;  European  Commission,  SWD(2019)  347  final  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0347&from=EN; 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0354&from=EN; 
341 
finalhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0341&from=EN  

SWD(2019)341: 

Commission, 

Commission, 

SWD(2019) 

European 

European 

106 

 
 
                                                           
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

Retailers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
Producing 
data 

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

to 

This includes  re-designing existing forms to include 
data  related 
the 
tables/forms was considered business as usual (as 
the  additional  time  spent  on  this  is  judged  to  be 
negligible) 

the  measure.  Filling 

in 

SME: [0.5,1]h manager + [7,14]h employee 
Large: [1,2]h manager + [14,21]h employee 
Internal inspections involve [0.5,1.75]h of a manager 
and  7h  of  an  employee  in  the  case  of  SMEs  and 
[1,3.5]h of a manager and 14h in the case of large 
enterprises 

External  inspections  are  expected  to  take  place  in 
less  than  1%  of  the  companies.  Each  external 
inspection will involve 3.5h manager and 7h of an 
employee.  

with 
Interviews 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

This includes not only identifying the new 
obligations imposed by the measure but also 
analysing the necessary steps that need to be 
taken to comply with it  

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

SME: [7,17.5]h legal team, 7h commercial team 
Large  Enterprises: 
commercial team 

  17.5h 

legal 

team,  14h 

This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees. To ensure that staff is able to properly 
explain what the indicated expected lifespan 
means we consider the need for:  

SME: 0.5h manager + 4h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 8h key employees 
- 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

- 
This includes the costs of sticking  stickers provided 
by manufacturers or importers on products in stock. 
Given that the measure will take about 2 years to be 
implemented,  the  number  of  units  without  the 
information is considered to be about 2.5% of the 
volume of sales. The costs to stick a sticker is equal 
to 5 minutes of labour. 

- 
None as it is assumed that the information will be 
provided on the product by default  

Stock percentage and 
time required to stick a 
sticker in line with Impact 
Assessment Reports of 
the Ecodesign 
regulations161 

161  European  Commission,  SWD(2019)349:  https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2019/EN/SWD-2019-
349-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-2.PDF; 
Commission, 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2019/EN/SWD-2019-349-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-2.PDF;  European 
Commission, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0347&from=EN; European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0354&from=EN; European Commission, Brussels, SWD(2019) 341 final  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0341&from=EN  

SWD(2019)349: 

European 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Enforcement costs 

Based  on  interviews  with  some  CPC  authorities,  it  is  assumed  that  Member  States 
(possibly with the exception of France) would have to create a dedicated team to enforce 
this measure. The size of the team would be around 5 experts. 25% of their time would be 
dedicated  to  monitoring  the  compliance  with  the  measure,  50%  would  be  to  carry  out 
inspections and 25% with handling complaints. We estimate that the number of complaints 
that can be handled given the available resources will be around 700 per year per Member 
State  (Average  as  some  will  significantly  more  and  others  significantly  less).  We  then 
assumed that about 1% will be dealt with through ADR bodies and 0.1% in courts. The 
costs of an ADR body adjudication and of a court adjudication were obtained from the 
Impact Assessment of CPC authorities and supporting study162.  
We assumed 140h for familiarization with the measure and adjust the internal procedures 
to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees will receive a 7h training. 
It is also assumed that there will be a yearly action per Member State, which will amount 
to EUR 40,000 (based on market research). 

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The approach followed to monetize the consumer welfare is illustrated in the figure below. 

Assumption 

Source 

11%-15% depending on the product type 

Consumer survey  

Depends on the good 

Statista (see Annex 7) 

The uncertainty regarding this parameter required us 
to define it as a uniform distribution function with a 
lower limit of 0.3 and an upper limit of 0.5. 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel 

of 
Share 
consumers  willing 
to pay 10% or more 
for  a  product  that 
lasts longer 
Average  price  of 
goods 

a 
Likelihood  of 
consumer 
finding 
an  alternative  that 
lasts  longer  within 
an acceptable price 
range   

162 European Commission, Support study for the Impact Assessment on the review of the CPC Regulation 2006/2004/EC: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cpc_review_support_study_1_en.pdf;  and  European  Commission, 
SWD(2016) 164 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0164&from=EN 
. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
indicated  by  companies 

Two  scenarios  were  tested  given  the  uncertainty 
regarding  how  reliable  the  information  on  expected 
the 
lifespans 
information is based on tests, the assumptions used on 
those  tests  might  lead  to  results  that  are  not  verified 
when the good are used by normal users under normal 
conditions): 

(even 

if 

a) 

b) 

low-moderate reliability (40%) 

moderate-high reliability (60%) 

Varies depending on the product 

0% 

Reliability  of 
information 

the 

Current  lifespan  of 
products 

Available 
information 
expected 
at the baseline 

on 
lifespan 

Expert judgement by a 
panel 

research 
Desk 
complemented by results 
of the consumer survey  

Mystery 
shopping 
conducted  in  the  context 
of this study  

Option 1.2.B. Obligation to inform consumers of the existence (or absence) of a 

commercial guarantee for the entire good and of its length. 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
(including 
data 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  

new 

Designing 
placing 

and 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but analysing what are the 
necessary steps that need to be taken to comply with 
it (including deciding whether or not to provide the 
commercial guarantee and if yes, for how long) 
SME: [7,21]h legal team, [7,14]h product development 
team, [7,14]h commercial team 
Large  Enterprises:    21h  legal  team,  [21,28]h  product 
development team, [21,28]h commercial team 
This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 

SME: 0.5h manager + 2h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 4h key employees 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

This includes identifying and compiling all the 
information available on commercial guarantees 

SME: 21h in total 
Large enterprises: 42h in total 

with 
Interviews 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

- 
- 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
information 
material 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 
Retailers  

and 

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 

- 
- 

This  includes not  only  identifying the  new  obligations 
imposed  by  the  measure  but  analysing  what  are  the 
necessary steps that need to be taken to comply with 
it  
SME: [7,17.5]h legal team, 17.5h commercial team 
Large Enterprises:  17.5h legal team, 35h commercial 
team 
This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 
employees 
SME: 0.5h manager + 4h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 8h key employees 

includes 

identifying  and  compiling  all 

This 
the 
information  available  on  commercial  guarantees  and 
adjusting  databases  to  compile  this  information  in  a 
consistent way. The costs are linked to the number of 
products sold. 
SME: 35h in total 
Large enterprises: 70h in total 

Producing 
data 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

new 

and 

- 
This includes the costs of re-designing price tags and 
to replace the existing ones. The cost is incurred once 
per product model sold by the seller. 

35h to re-design tags and 5 minutes to replace existing 
tags (per price tag) 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

- 
We  assume  that  placing  the  tags  with  the  correct 
information will not impose incremental costs however 
ensuring  that  all  is  correctly  done  will  be  relatively 
demanding  and  for  this  reason  inspection  costs  are 
higher for this measure  
SME: [1,2]h manager plus [7,14]h employee per year 
Large  enterprises: 
[14,28]h 
employee per year 

[2,4]h  manager  plus 

Enforcement costs 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Cost to re-design price 
tags based on data from 
with companies. 
Time required to stick a 
sticker in line with Impact 
Assessment Reports of 
the Ecodesign 
regulations163 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

163  European  Commission,  SWD(2019)349:  https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2019/EN/SWD-
2019-349-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-2.PDF; 
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0347&from=EN;  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0354&from=EN;  European  Commission,  SWD(2019)341 
final: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019SC0341&from=EN  

SWD(2019)347 

Commission, 

European 

final: 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed that the measure would not 
require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce CRD and 
SGD. 
We, therefore, assume that the measure will require an additional Full Time Equivalent, 
with its time divided equality between monitoring, inspecting, and handling complaints. 
We assumed 70h for familiarization with the measure and adjust the internal procedures to 
start enforcing the measure. 16 employees will receive a 7h training. 
It is also assumed that there will be a yearly action per Member State, which will amount 
to EUR 40,000 (based on market research). 
The other unit costs are assumed to be the same as in the previous measure.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The approach followed to monetise the consumer welfare is illustrated in the figure below. 

of 

Share 
consumers 
willing  to  pay  5% 
or  more 
for  a 
product  that  has 
one 
of 
year 
guaranteed 
lifespan 
Average  price  of 
goods 

Average  cost  of 
one 
of 
year 
commercial 
guarantee 
Likelihood  of  a 
consumer  finding 
an alternative that 
has  at  least  an 
additional  year  of 
guaranteed 
lifespan within an 
acceptable  price 
range   

Assumption 

Source 

29%-33% depending on the product type 

Consumer survey  

Depends on the good 

Statista  

Depends on the good 

Mystery 
exercise  

shopping 

Depends  on  the  expected  evolution  of  the  offer  of 
commercial  guarantees.  This  was  studied  using  an 
agent-based  model  and 
two  scenarios  were 
developed considering the results of the simulations: 

a) 

Low-moderate effectiveness (evolution of 
products with commercial guarantees longer than 2 
years and closer to the expected lifespan low-
moderate about 0.25% a year) 

111 

the 

offer 

model 
Agent-based 
provided an indication on 
how 
of 
commercial  guarantees 
might evolve 
Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel 
on 
interviews  and  surveys 
with  stakeholders  and 
desk research 

based 

 
 
 
 
b) 

Moderate-high effectiveness (evolution of 
products with commercial guarantees longer than 2 
years and closer to the expected lifespan moderate-
high about 1% a year) 

The data collected related the difficulties of consumers 
in comparing the available information varied greatly 
and for that reason we defined this parameter as a 
uniform  distribution  with  a  lower  limit  of  0.5  and  an 
upper limit of 0.85. 

Varies depending on the product 

0%-28% depending on the product 

Mystery 
exercise  

shopping 

Desk 
research 
complemented by results 
of the consumer survey  

Mystery 
shopping 
conducted  in  the  context 
of this study  

Comparability  of 
information at the 
baseline 

Current 
of products 

lifespan 

Available 
information 
on 
expected  lifespan 
at the baseline 

Option 1.2.C: 1.2.B + Obligation to inform consumers on the period of time during 

which free software updates will be provided by manufacturers 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
(including 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  

new 

Designing 
placing 

and 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken to comply with it (this considers 
the fact that SGD already covers these aspects) 
team, 

[10.5,17.5]h  product 

[7,21]h 

legal 

SME: 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

development team, [10.5,17.5]h commercial team 

Large  Enterprises:    21h  legal  team,  [28,35]h    product 

development team, [28,35]h  commercial team 
This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 

SME: 1h manager + 3.5h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1.5h managers + 7h key employees 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

This includes identifying and compiling all the 
information available on commercial guarantees and 
to identify for how long updates could be available 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

SME: 21h  
Large enterprises: 42h 

- 

- 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
information 
material 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

Retailers  

and 

- 

- 

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This  includes  not  only  identifying  the  new  obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken to comply with it  

with 
Interviews 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

SME: [7,17.5]h legal team; 17.5h commercial team 
Large  Enterprises:    17.5h  legal  team,  35h  commercial 

team 

Training 
(one-off) 

This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 

employees 

SME: 0.5h manager + 4h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 8h key employees 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
Producing 
data 

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

- 

- 

Replacement of tags in the first year/update of website 
35h to redesign, 5 minutes to replace existing tags (per 
tag) 

with 
Interviews 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

- 

Internal inspections: 

- SME: [1,2]h manager plus [7,14]h employee per year 

- Large enterprises: [2,4]h manager plus [14,28]h 

employee per year 

External inspections are expected to take place in less 

than 1% of the companies 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Expert judgment by panel 

Enforcement costs 

The enforcement costs are expected to be the same as for option 1.2.B. 

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The impact on monetisable consumer welfare is equal to the impacts calculated for option 
1.2.B  plus  the  impacts  to  consumers  arising  from  receiving  information  about  software 
updates (when applicable). 
The  approach  followed  to  monetise  the  consumer  welfare  related  to  the  provision  of 
information on software updates is illustrated in the figure below. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of 
Share 
consumers 
that 
did  not  repair  a 
product  because 
of lack of updated 
Average  price  of 
goods 

Likelihood  of  a 
consumer  being 
able  to  repair  a 
product due to the 
existence 
of 
updated 
(when 
that  would  have 
not been the case 
in the baseline)   
Additional 
lifespan 
result of a repair 

as 

a 

spare 
information 

Available 
part 
at the baseline 

Likelihood 
of 
finding  a  product 
that 
offers 
updates  after  the 
reasonable period 
of time 
to 
Willingness 
an 
for 
pay 
additional  year  of 
updates  

Assumption 

Source 

1%-10% depending on the product 

Consumer survey  

Depends on the good 

Statista 

We considered that not all products that were not 
repaired because of lack of updates after the 
reasonably expected period of time (this is already a 
requirement per SGD) will be reparable. 
Uniform(0.5,1) 

Expert 

judgement  by  a 

panel 

See previous measures. 

5%-6% 

This probability will follow a triangular distribution with a 
lower  limit  of  zero  and  upper  limit  of  1.  The  peak  is 
considered to be below 50%, at around 25%. 

Mystery 

shopping 
conducted  in  the  context 
of this study 

Expert 

judgement  by  a 

panel 

Values from the information provided respondents to the 

Consumer survey  

survey. It varies depending on the product. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3. 

“Sub-problem  1.3:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  product’s 
reparability” 

Option 1.3.A. Provision of updated, user-friendly repair and user manuals 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

This  includes not  only  identifying the  new  obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken to comply with it  
SME:  [7,21]h  legal  team,  14h  product  development 
team, 3.5h commercial team 
Large  Enterprises:    21h  legal  team,  28h  product 
development team, 7h commercial team 
This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 
employees including on how to develop repair manuals 
SME: 0.5h manager + 7h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 14h key employees 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
(including 
adapting  system 
retrieve 
to 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  
(one-off 
model) 

new 

per 

includes 

identifying  and  compiling  all 

This 
the 
information available to develop the repair manuals for 
models  already  in  the  market  and  adjust  internal 
systems to collect data to prepare repair manuals 
SME: [7,35]h in total 
Large enterprises: 105h in total 

Cost with producing a user-friendly repair manual  
A  simple  repair manual  for  users  is  expected  to cost 
between EUR 3,500 and 6,000 (per model) 
The  difference might  be  due to  the  complexity  of  the 
product and to the existence or not of a repair manual 
developed for professional repairers. For this reason, 
in the analysis, we consider the unit costs to follow a 
uniform distribution. 

and 

Two scenarios were developed: 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

The repair manual is made available on the 
 
website (in this case it will require [7,14]h for SMEs 
and 28h for large enterprises), version updates will be 
done once a month and will take [0.5,1]h for SMEs 
and 2h for large enterprises 

 The repair manual is printed. The costs will be 

 
equal to EUR 2.16 per manual 

This  includes  re-designing  existing  forms  to  include 
data related to the measure. Filling in the tables/forms 
was  considered  business  as  usual  (as  the  additional 
time spent on this is judged to be negligible) 
SME: [0.5,1]h manager + [7,14]h employee 
Large: 1h manager + [14,21]h employee 

115 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

with 
Interviews 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Data provided by iFixit 

Update of website, 
Expert judgement by a 
panel based on 
interviews with 
companies. 

Cost of printing: 80 
pages times average 
cost of EUR 0.027 a 
page (ICF data) 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

 
 
 
Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

Retailers  

Internal  inspections  take  place  quarterly  and  in  total 
involve: 

and 

0.5h of a manager in the case of SMEs and 1h 

- 
for large enterprises  

[3.5,7]h of an employee in the case of SMEs or 

- 
14h in the case of large enterprises 
External inspections are expected to take place in less 
than  1%  of  the  companies.  Each  external  inspection 
will involve 1h of a manager and 2h of an employee.  

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but analysing the steps that 
need to be taken to comply with it  

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

SME: 3.5h legal team + 3.5h commercial team 
Large Enterprises:  3.5h legal team + 7h commercial 
team 
This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 

SME: 0.5h manager + 2h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 4h key employees 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
Producing 
data 

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

Enforcement costs 

Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed that the measure would not 
require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce CRD and 
SGD. 
We therefore assume that the measure will require one  additional Full Time Equivalent 
(per  Member  State),  with  its  time  divided  equally  between  monitoring,  inspecting,  and 
handling complaints. 
We assumed 70h for familiarization with the measure and adjusting the internal procedures 
to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees will receive a 7h training. 
It is also assumed that there will be a yearly action per Member State, which will cost EUR 
20,000 (based on market research). 
The other unit costs are assumed to be the same as in the previous measures.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The approach followed to monetise the consumer welfare is illustrated in the figure below. 

Assumption 

Source 

2%-5% depending on the product 

Consumer survey  

Depends on the good 

Statista  

We considered that on average between 50% to 
100% of the products that were not repaired because 
of lack of manual could be successfully repaired if one 
were available. 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel 

Adopted a conservative approach and assumed that it 
will be between 0.5 years and 1 year depending on 
the product. This is considered reasonable as lower 
gains would most likely lead to replacement instead of 
repair (given the costs with repair)   
0% 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel 

shopping 
Mystery 
conducted  in  the  context 
of this study 

of 
Share 
consumers 
that 
did  not  repair  a 
product  because 
of  lack  of  repair 
manual  at 
the 
baseline 
Average  price  of 
goods 

Likelihood  of  a 
consumer  being 
able  to  repair  a 
product due to the 
existence  of  a 
repair 
manual 
(when  that  would 
have not been the 
case 
the 
in 
baseline)   
Additional 
lifespan 
result of a repair 

as 

a 

Available 
manuals  at 
baseline 

repair 
the 

Option 1.3.B. Provision of information about how long and which spare parts are 

available  

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
(including 
data 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but analysing the steps that 
need to be taken to comply with it  
SME:  [7,21]h legal team, 17.5h product development 
team, 3.5h commercial team 
Large  Enterprises:    21h  legal  team,  35h  product 
development team, 7h commercial team 
This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 

SME: 0.5h manager + 3.5h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 7h key employees 

This includes identifying and compiling all the 
information available to identify which spare parts are 
provided and adjusting internal systems to ensure 
that this information is consistently accessible 

SME: [14,35]h in total 
Large enterprises: 105h in total 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

Meetings to decide which spare parts will be available 
and for how long 
[0.5,1]h per product (this decision will be taken during 
meetings organized as part of business as usual). 
35h for SMEs and 70h for large enterprises to update 
their  websites  to  be  able  to  provide  the  necessary 
information 
[0.25,0.5]h  for  SME  and  1h  for  large  enterprises  to 
weekly update their websites. 
This  includes  re-designing  existing  forms  to  include 
data related to the measure. Filling in the tables/forms 
was  considered  business  as  usual  (as  the  additional 
time spent on this is judged to be negligible) 
SME: [0.5,1]h manager + [7,14]h employee 
Large: 1h manager + [14,21]h employee 
Internal  inspections  take  place  quarterly  and  in  total 
involve  

0.5h of a manager in the case of SMEs and 1h 

 
for large enterprises  

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

Market data from ICF 
Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

judgement  by  a 
on 
with 

based 

Expert 
panel 
interviews 
companies 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

[3.5,7]h of an employee in the case of SMEs or 

 
14h in the case of large enterprises 
External inspections are expected to take place in less 
than  1%  of  the  companies.  Each  external  inspection 
will involve 1h manager and 2h of an employee.  

Expert judgment by a panel 

Retailers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but analyzing the steps that 
need to be taken to comply with it  

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

SME: [7,17.5]h legal team; 10.5h key employees 
Large  Enterprises:    17.5h  legal  team,  21h  key 
employee 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
Training 
(one-off) 

This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

SME: 0.5h manager + 2h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 4h key employees 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
Producing 
data 

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

- 

Negotiations with manufacturers and importers to 
make sure that they provide this information. 
We  only  considered  the  incremental  time  devoted  to 
discussing this aspect 
SME: 7h per year 
Large enterprises: 21h per year 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

This includes the costs of re-designing their websites 
and updating information if they sell online. 
SME: 14h for updating website and 3.5h per month to 
keep the information up to date 
Large enterprises: 21h for updating website and 7h per 
month to keep the information up to date 

- 

Internal inspections: 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

and 

- 
year 

SME: 0.5h manager plus 3.5h employee per 

Interviews  with  companies 
and industry associations 

Large enterprises: 1h manager plus 7h 

- 
employee per year 
External inspections are expected to take place in less 
than 1% of the companies 

Expert 
panel 

judgement  by  a 

Enforcement costs 

Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed that the measure would not 
require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce CRD and 
SGD. 
We therefore assume that the measure will require one additional Full Time Equivalent 
(per  Member  State),  with  its  time  divided  equally  between  monitoring,  inspecting,  and 
handling complaints. 
We assumed 70h for familiarization with the measure and adjusting the internal procedures 
to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees will receive a 7h training. 
It is also assumed that there might be a yearly action per Member State, which will cost 
EUR 20,000 (based on market research). 
The other unit costs are assumed to be the same as in the previous measures.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The approach followed to monetize the consumer welfare is illustrated in the figure below. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assumption 

Source 

3%-13% depending on the product 

Consumer survey 

Depends on the good 

Statista  

We considered that between 50% to 100% of the 
products that were not repaired because of lack of 
spare parts could be successfully repaired if parts 
were available. 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel 

See previous measure 

5%-6% 

This probability will follow a triangular distribution with 
a lower limit of zero and upper limit of 1. The peak is 
considered to be below 50% around 40%. 

shopping 
Mystery 
conducted  in  the  context 
of this study 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel 

Values from the information provided respondents to 
the survey. It varies depending on the product. 

Consumer survey  

of 
Share 
consumers that did 
not repair a product 
because  of  lack  of 
spare parts 
Average  price  of 
goods 

a 
Likelihood  of 
being 
consumer 
able 
to  repair  a 
product  due  to  the 
existence  of  spare 
parts 
that 
(when 
would  have  not 
been the case in the 
baseline)   
Additional  lifespan 
as  a  result  of  a 
repair 

spare 
Available 
part  information  at 
the baseline 

Probability 
of 
finding  a  product 
with 
better 
conditions 
regarding 
parts  within 
acceptable 
range 
Willingness  to  pay 
for  an  additional 
year of spare parts  

spare 
an 
price 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Option 1.3.C. Provision of information on availability of repair services 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Retailers  

Familiarization with the 

measure 

(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

This  includes  not  only  identifying  the  new  obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken to comply with it  
SME: [7,17.5]h legal team; 17.5h key employees 
Large Enterprises:  17.5h legal team, 35h key employee 
This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 

employees 

SME: 0.5h manager + 2h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 4h key employees 

Interviews with companies and 
industry associations 

Interviews with companies and 
industry associations 

Retrieving 

This includes searching and compiling available information 
internal 

relevant 
from 
information 
about  repair  services  and  adjusting 
the 
existing  data  and 
systems to be able to gather and report this data 
[35,70]h for SMEs and 140h for Large enterprises  
adjusting  existing 
data 

Interviews with companies and 
industry associations 

Producing new data Updating information on a weekly basis:  

- 

- 

SME: 1h per week 

Large enterprises: 3.5h per week 

Interviews with companies and 
industry associations 

Designing  and  placing 

Update of website: 35h to redesign 

information 
material 

Adjust 

forms 

tables (one-off) - 

and 

Interviews with companies and 
industry associations 

Interviews with companies and 
industry associations 

Inspections 

(internal 

and external) 

SME: 1h manager plus 7h employee per year 
Large enterprises: 2h manager plus 14h employee per year 

Interviews with companies and 
industry associations 

Enforcement costs 

Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed that the measure would not 
require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce CRD and 
SGD. 
We therefore assume that the measure will require an additional 0.5 Full Time Equivalent 
(per  Member  State),  with  its  time  divided  equally  between  monitoring,  inspecting,  and 
handling complaints. 
We assumed 70h for familiarization with the measure and adjust the internal procedures to 
start enforcing the measure. 16 employees will receive a 7h training. 
It is also assumed that there might be a yearly action per Member State, which will cost 
EUR 20,000 (based on market research). 
The other unit costs are assumed to be the same as in the previous measures.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
The  quantification  of  benefits  was  done  by  adjusting  the  stated  willingness  to  pay  for 
information  about  the  availability  of  repair  services  of  products164  (including  the 
availability of spare parts, repair services and updates) by the respondents to the consumer 
survey and multiplying it by the number of consumers in the EU.  

Assumption 

Source 

43%  

Consumer survey  

Values  adapted 
respondents to the survey. 

from 

the 

information  provided 

Consumer survey  

of 
Share 
consumers 
that 
willing  to  pay  for 
the information 
Average 
willingness to pay 

Option 1.3.D. Reparability Scoring Index 
This measure was identified after the consultations had been concluded. A panel used the 
data available to fill in in the data gaps. 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken as a result of the measure  
SME:  [7,35]h  legal  team,  35h  product  development 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
for  previous 
collected 
measures 

team, 7h commercial team 

Large  Enterprises:    35h  legal  team,  70h  product 

development team, 14h commercial team 

This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 

employees 

SME: 3.5h manager + 10.5h key employees 
Large enterprises: 7h managers + 21h key employees 

This 

includes 

identifying  and  compiling  all 

the 
information  available  to  assess  how  reparable  their 
products are according to the methodology 
Large enterprises: 175h 

SME: [35,52.5]h 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
collected 
for  previous 
measures 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
for  previous 
collected 
measures 

Assessment  of 

the  reparability  according 

to 

the 

methodology will take 7h per model 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
(including 
adapting  system 
retrieve 
to 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data 

new 

164 The question did not specify for what products the information would be available, so we adjusted the value based 
on the share that consumers spend on the three product categories considered in the analysis (large household 
appliances, small household appliances and ICT and electronic services). 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

We  assume  information  will  be  provided  by  digital 

means 

Design will take: 35h 

This includes re-designing existing forms to include data 
related to the measure. Filling in the tables/forms was 
considered  business  as  usual  (as  the  additional  time 
spent on this is judged to be negligible) 
SME: [0.5,1]h manager + [7,14]h employee 
Large: 1h manager + 28h employee 
Internal  inspections  involve  [0.5,1.75]h  of  a  manager 
and  7h  of  an  employee  in  the  case  of  SMEs  and 
[1,3.5]h  of  a  manager  and  14h  in  the  case  of  large 
enterprises 

External inspections are expected to take place in less 
than  1%  of  the  companies.  Each  external  inspection 
will involve 3.5h manager and 7h of an employee.  

Retailers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This  includes  not  only  identifying  the  new  obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken to comply with it. 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
Producing 
data  

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

SME: [7,35]h legal team; 42h key employees 
Large Enterprises:  35h legal team, 84h key employees 
This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 
employees.  This  training  will  ensure  that  employees 
understand the repair index and that can, on the one 
hand,  score  a  product  according  to  the  index  and 
explain the repair score to consumers. As this will be a 
completely new concept, it is expected that the training 
will involve more resources 

SME: 3.5h manager + [7,42]h key employees 
Large  enterprises:  7h  managers  + 

[42,84]h  key 

employees 

SME: 140h 
Large enterprises: 280h 
This includes assessing the reparability of products for 
which  the  information  is  not  available  and  stick  the 
label on the product plus updating internal systems. 

SME: 2h a week 
Large enterprises: 4h employees a week 
Costs with the placement of tags 
5 minutes to stick the labels on those products that do 
the 

not  have 
importer/manufacturer (assumed to be about 2.5%) 
- 

that  were  provided  by 

it,  but 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

SME: 1h manager plus 7h employee per year 
Large enterprises: 2h manager plus 14h employee per 

and 

year 

123 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
for  previous 
collected 
measures 
Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
for  previous 
collected 
measures 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
collected 
for  previous 
measures 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
collected 
for  previous 
measures 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
collected 
for  previous 
measures 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
collected 
for  previous 
measures 
Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
collected 
for  previous 
measures 
Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
collected 
for  previous 
measures 

This involves collecting all the information and preparing 
the procedures to be able to assess the reparability of 
products per product category (including negotiations 
with manufacturers and importers) 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
for  previous 
collected 
measures 

 
 
 
Enforcement costs 

Based  on  interviews  with  some  CPC  authorities,  it  is  assumed  that  the  measure  would 
require some additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce CRD and SGD. 
We therefore assume that the measure will require two additional Full Time Equivalents 
(per Member State), with their time divided equally between monitoring, inspecting, and 
handling complaints. 
We assumed 70h for familiarization with the measure and adjust the internal procedures to 
start enforcing the measure. 16 employees will receive a 7h training. 
It is also assumed that there might be a yearly action per Member State, which will cost 
EUR 20,000 (based on market research). 
The other unit costs are assumed to be the same as in the previous measures.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The  quantification  of  benefits  was  done  by  adjusting  the  stated  willingness  to  pay  for 
information  about  the  availability  of  repair  services  of  products165  (including  the 
availability of spare parts, repair services and updates) by the respondents to the consumer 
survey and multiplying it by the number of consumers in the EU.  

Assumption 

Source 

43% depending on the product 

Consumer survey  

Values  adapted 
respondents to the survey. 

from 

the 

information  provided 

Consumer survey  

of 
Share 
consumers 
that 
willing  to  pay  for 
the information 
Average 
willingness to pay 

Option 1.3.E: Provision of Repair Scoring Index, or other relevant repair 

information on a where applicable/available basis 

This option was identified after the consultations had been concluded. 

The data on costs was extrapolated from the data collected for other related measures. 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

- 

- 

165 The question did not specify for what products the information would be available, so we adjusted the value based 
on the share that consumers spend on the three product categories considered in the analysis (large household 
appliances, small household appliances and ICT and electronic services). 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
(including 
data 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data 

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 
Retailers  

and 

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken as a result of the measure 
SME: 7h legal team, 10.5h key employees 
Large Enterprises: 10.5h legal team, 21h key 
employees 
This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 
SME: [0.5,3.5]h manager + [4,7]h key employees 
Large enterprises: [1,7]h managers + [8,14]h key 
employees 

Expert judgement based 
on data collected for 
previous measures 

Expert judgement based 
on data collected for 
previous measures 

This includes identifying and compiling all the 
information available 
SME: 35h 
Large enterprises: 70h 

Expert judgement based 
on data collected for 
previous measures 

- 

Expert judgement based 
on data collected for 
previous measures 

- 

- 

Negligible - 

- 

- 

125 

 
  
Enforcement costs 

It  is  assumed  that  this  option  would  not  require  additional  resources  from  enforcement 
authorities other than the ones related to the one-off costs of familiarization and training. 
(it  was  assumed  70h  for  familiarisation  with  the  option  and  adjusting  the  internal 
procedures to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees will receive a 7h training.) 

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

Lack of data did not allow to quantify the benefits of this option.  

4.4. 

“Sub-problem 2.1: Consumers are sold products that do not last as long 
as they should, and consumers expect” 

For the purpose of the assessment obsolescence is defined by failures happening in the first 
60% of the expected lifespan of a good. 

Option 2.1.A Information on early failures of products identified by authorised 

entities 

This measure was identified after the consultations had been concluded and the estimations 
relied on the expert judgement of a panel. 

Administrative burden 

Assumption 

Source 

Third-parties (assumption based on the contact list developed during the study: about 20 per Member State) 

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken to comply with it  

35h legal team, 35h employees 

Training 
(one-off) 

This includes an initial training of managers and key 
employees 

1h manager + 7h employees 

This includes identifying and compiling all the 
information available regarding early failure of 
products 

35h of employee 

for 

Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
available 
other 
measures 
Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
available 
other 
measures 
Expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  

for 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
(including 
data 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Updating data 

14h adjust website and 2h per month to update the website 

in case of new relevant data. 

Market 
research  and 
expert  judgement  by  a 
panel  based  on  data 
other 
available 
measures 

for 

Enforcement costs 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed that the measure would not 
require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce UCPD. 
We  therefore  assume  that  the  measure  will  require  Full  Time  Equivalent  (per  Member 
State), with  50% of their time devoted to  surveillance, 25% devoted to  inspections and 
25% to handling complaints. 
We  assumed  35h  for  one  person  getting  familiarized  with  the  measure  and  adjust  the 
internal  procedures  to  start  enforcing  the  measure.  16  employees  will  receive  a  3.5h 
training. 
The costs of adjudication are expected to be in line with the unit costs presented in the 
previous measures.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The approach followed to monetise the consumer welfare is illustrated in the figure below. 

Assumption 

Source 

Share 

of 

early 

6%-20% depending on the product (for 60% scenario)  Consumer survey  

failures 

Average  price  of 

Depends on the good 

Statista  

goods 

Additional 

lifespan 
as  a  result  of  the 
improvement 

40% or 25% (depending on the scenario 60% or 
75%) 

NA 

Option 2.1.B. Ban of certain identified practices associated to early obsolescence 
The incidence of banned practices is not known. For this reason we monetised the costs 
and benefits for two scenarios for the incidence of the banned practices (i.e., the percentage 
of early failures that are due to the practices that will be banned under the measure): 15% 
and 30%. 

Substantive Compliance Costs 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers (excluding those that only produce components)  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
(including 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Updating  models 
to  comply  with 
measure 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

legal 

team, 

[7,35]h 

[14,35]h  product 

This  includes not  only  identifying the  new  obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the steps 
that need to be taken to comply with it  
SME: 
development team, 7 commercial team 
Large  Enterprises:    35h  legal  team,  [35,70]h  product 
development team, 14 commercial team 
This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 
employees 
SME: 3.5h manager + 10.5h key employees 
Large enterprises: 7h managers + 21h key employees 

includes 

identifying  and  compiling  all 

This 
the 
information available to ensure that banned practices 
are  being  practices  and  if  they  are  to  ensure  the 
procedures are put in place to address them 
SME: [70,140]h in total 
Large enterprises: 280h in total 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

Companies producing models that do not comply with 
the measure will have to revise their production process 
in  order  to  not  engage  in  the  banned  practices  and 
possibly  improve  their  products.  The  latter  costs  are 
particularly difficult to estimate as they depend on two 
things: 

the list of practices that will be banned, and the 

 
nature of those practices, i.e., if the practice is to 
prevent access to components or avoid software 
updates that will reduce the performance of the 
product, then they are not expected to lead to costs, if 
the banned practice is to ensure that the design of the 
product ensures its robustness and its reparability, 
then the companies may need to adapt their 
production process.   

the specificities of the production process of 

 
those companies engaging in these practices. 

While  fully  aware  of  these  limitations,  we  decided  to 
carry out a very rough estimation of the possible costs 
for companies. This was done by screening the prices 
of  various  product  types  on  online  marketplaces, 
identifying the price of the cheapest product, and then 
assume that it will cost between 7.5% and 15% extra to 
comply  with  the  measure  and  improve  the  product 
accordingly.166  
Internal  inspections  take  place  quarterly  and  in  total 
involve  

0.5h of a manager in the case of SMEs and 1h 

 
for large enterprises  

Market research 

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

[3.5,7]h of an employee in the case of SMEs or 

 
14h in the case of large enterprises 

Expert judgment by panel 

166 This was incorporated in the analysis by ensuring that the costs of improving follow a uniform distribution (0.075, 
0.15). 

128 

 
 
 
                                                           
External inspections are expected to take place in less 
than  1%  of  the  companies.  Each  external  inspection 
will involve 1h manager and 2h of an employee.  

Retailers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but analysing what are the 
necessary steps that need to be taken to comply with 
it  

Interviews 
with 
companies  and  industry 
associations 

SME: [7,17.5]h legal team 
Large Enterprises:  17.5h legal team 

Enforcement costs 

Based  on  interviews  with  some  CPC  authorities,  it  is  assumed  that  the  measure  would 
require  significant  additional  resources  on  top  of  the  existing  ones  to  enforce  UCPD 
(except for one Member States – France). 
We therefore assume that the measure will require a team of seven additional Full Time 
Equivalent  (per  Member  State),  with  42%  of  their  time  devoted  to  surveillance,  42% 
devoted to inspections and 16% to handling complaints. 
We  assumed  70h  for  three  people  getting  familiarized  with  the  measure  and  adjust  the 
internal  procedures  to  start  enforcing  the  measure.  16  employees  will  receive  a  14h 
training. 
The costs of adjudication ate expected to be significantly higher than average given the 
complexity of the matter. We assume that one ADR case will costs around EUR 7,756 and 
a court case around five times the average.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The approach followed to monetize the consumer welfare is illustrated in the figure below. 

Assumption 

Source 

6%-20% depending on the product (for 60% scenario)  Consumer survey  

Depends on the good 

Statista  

See incidence of practice 

NA 

Share  of  early 
failures 

Average  price  of 
goods 

Likelihood  of  the 
failure  being  due 
the  practice 
to 
banned   

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Additional 
lifespan 
result 
improvement 

of 

as 

40% or 25% (depending on the scenario 60% or 75%)  NA 

a 
the 

4.5. 

“Sub-problem 2.2: Consumers are faced with the practice of making 
unclear or not well-substantiated green claims (“Greenwashing”)” 

Option 2.2.A. Ban of general /vague environmental claims   

Substantive compliance costs 

The  adopted  approach  to  the  monetisation  of  the  substantive  compliance  costs  of  the 
measure took into account the lack of data on the number of products offered in the market 
and so assumed cost per company (SMEs and Large enterprises) but not per product. 
Data regarding the share of products with unsubstantiated vague claims (to avoid double 
counting of benefits with measures under problem 2.3, we only considered non-label/logo 
type  of  claims)  was  obtained  from  the  Study  on  “Environmental  claims  in  the  EU: 
Inventory and reliability assessment”.167 

Assumption 

Source 

Manufacturers and Service Providers 

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This  includes  not  only  identifying  the  new  obligations 
imposed  by  the  measure  but  analysing  what  the 
necessary  steps  are  that  need  to  be  taken  to 
comply with it.168  

SMEs: 3.5 legal team, 1h product development team, 1h 

commercial team 
Large  Enterprises:  3.5 

legal 

team,  2h  product 

development team, 2h commercial team 

Interviews  with  companies 
industry 

and 
associations 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
(including 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  
(one-off 
model) 

new 

per 

This includes an initial training of managers 
SME: 0.5h manager 
Large enterprises: 1h managers 
This includes gathering data about which products have 
claims  that  are  not  allowed  according  to  the 
measure. We assume the information is very easy 
to trace as it is included with the products. 

Interviews  with  companies 
industry 

and 
associations 

Interviews  with  companies 
industry 

and 
associations 

SME: 7h employees 
Large enterprises: 14h employees 

- 

167  
Milieu & IPSOS, 2020. To be published. 
168  
The measure is relatively simple, specific, and already in line with many guidelines. It also prohibits an action 
instead of requiring one. For these reasons, the time required for legal analysis is considered to be much less than the 
one considered for other measures. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

and 

This includes re-designing the packages that still 

include banned claims at the time the measure 
enters into force 

SME: [14,28]h employees 
Large enterprises: [28,42]h employees 

Interviews  with  companies 
industry 

and 
associations 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

- 
Internal inspections involve 0.5h of a manager and 1h of 
an  employee  in  the  case  of  SMEs  and  1h  of 
managers and 4h in the case of large enterprises 

External inspections are expected to take place in less 
than  1%  of 
the  companies.  Each  external 
inspection will require an amount of time similar to 
an internal inspection.  

Retailers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This  includes  not  only  identifying  the  new  obligations 
imposed  by  the  measure  but  also  analysing  the 
necessary  steps  that  need  to  be  taken  to  comply 
with it  

SME: 3.5h legal team, 1h commercial team 
Large  Enterprises:    3.5h  legal  team,  2h  commercial 

team 

Interviews  with  companies 
industry 

and 
associations 

Expert judgment by panel 

Interviews  with  companies 
industry 

and 
associations 

Training 
(one-off) 

This  includes  an  initial  training  of  managers  and  key 

employees 

SME: 0.5h manager + 1h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 2h key employees 

Interviews  with  companies 
industry 

and 
associations 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
Producing 
data 

new 

and 

Designing 
placing 
information 
material 

- 

- 
This includes ensuring that the packages do not have 
banned claims. We assume that in the first years 
after the implementation of the measure, there 
might be products in stock with claims that need to 
be “removed” using for example a sticker 

SME: 7h employees 
Large enterprises: 14h employees 

Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

- 
External inspections are expected to take place in less 

than 1% of the companies. Each external 
inspection will require 0.5h of manager and 3.5h 
employees for SMEs and 1h of managers and 7h 
employees for Large Enterprises. 

Enforcement costs 

Expert judgment by panel 

Expert judgment by panel 

It is assumed that the measure would not require significant additional resources on top of 
the existing ones to enforce UCPD. In fact, some of the interviewed CPC authorities even 
indicated that the measure might lead to savings as it will help them to prove the practice 
of “greenwashing” more easily (less resources are needed to substantiate their assessment). 
For these Member States we considered that the measure does not bring incremental costs. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the others, we assume that one Full Time equivalent would work half time with 50% 
of its time devoted to monitoring, 25% to inspections and the remaining 25% to handle 
complaints. 

For  all  Member  States,  we  assumed  35h  for  two  people  getting  familiarized  with  the 
measure and adjust the internal procedures to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees 
will receive a 7h training. 
It is also assumed that there might be a yearly action per Member State, which will cost 
EUR 20,000 (based on market research). 
The costs of an ADR body adjudication and of a court adjudication were obtained from the 
Impact Assessment of CPC authorities and supporting study169.  

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The approach to quantification of the impact of the measure on the monetisable consumer 
welfare was the following: 

Step 1. Estimate the percentage of products carrying claims that will become 

- 
banned if the measure is implemented.170 

Step 2. Estimate the share of consumers that were purchasing those products (in 

- 
the baseline) and that are willing to pay to be sure that the information is trustworthy. 

Step 3. Estimate how much these consumers are willing to pay for more 

- 
trustworthy information for those sales covered by the measure.171 

In the scenario where we assume that the measure will increase the level of trust 

- 
of consumers, and for that reason more consumers (than in the baseline) will purchase 
greener products, then the monetisation of the benefits of the new demand was done by: 

Step 4. Estimate the share of consumers that were not purchasing those greener 

- 
products (in the baseline) and that would start doing as a result of the measure. 

-  Step 5. Estimate the surplus of these new consumers based on their stated 

willingness to pay to have products with trustworthy information. 

Assumption 

Source 

15% 

Consumer survey  

Three  scenarios  were  developed  to  consider  three 
possible  impacts  of  the  measure  on  the  trust  of 
consumers on environmental claims and therefore 
(following  evidence  collected  from  the  consumer 
survey  and  other  studies)  purchase  products  that 
claim to be more environmentally friendly: 

Expert judgement based on 
results of the consumer 
survey  

that 
Consumers 
always  buy  more 
environmentally 
friendly  products 
(when available) 
that 
Consumers 
will  start  trusting 
information 
the 
and 
buying 
greener  products 
more often 

169 European Commission, Support study for the impact assessment on the review of the CPC Regulation 2006/2004/EC: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cpc_review_support_study_1_en.pdf  and  European  Commission, 
SWD(2016) 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0164&from=EN. 

final: 

164 

170 We do not have data on volume but on sales, so had to assume proportionality between the share of products and the 
share of sales. 
171 We assume the costs of the products with vague non-substantiated claims and with vague substantiated claims is 
similar. 

132 

 
 
 
                                                           
to 
for  having 

Willingness 
pay 
trustworthy 
environmental 
information 

Sales 
scope 

within 

 

 

 

0% no impact on trust 

0.5% low-moderate impact on trust 

1% moderate-high 

  Existing demand: 0.35 (average, depends on the 

Consumer survey  

product) 

  New demand: 4.91% (average, depends on the 

product) 

Products with textual claims: 27% (average)  
Share of textual vague claims: 36% 
Sales within scope: 27% X Uniform (34%,36%)172  

Study  on  “Environmental 
the  EU: 
claims 
in 
Inventory and reliability 
assessment”.173 

Mystery  shopping  carried 
out in the context of the 
present study 

Likelihood 
of 
finding  a  greener 
product without a 
misleading claim 

The  uncertainty  regarding  this  parameter  required  us  to 
define it as a triangular distribution function with a lower 
limit of 0, an upper limit of 0.5 and a peak of 25% 

Expert judgment by a panel 

Option 2.2.B. Prohibition of environmental claims that do not fulfil a minimum set 

of criteria 

The substantive compliance costs and enforcement costs followed the same approach and 
assumptions presented for the previous measure.  

4.6. 

“Sub-problem 2.3: Consumers are faced with the use of sustainability 
labels and digital information tools that are not always transparent or 
credible” 

Administrative burdens 

Since the measures impose both administrative burden and substantive compliance costs, 
we split the costs related to familiarization with the measure, training, retrieving data and 
adjusting internal systems and procedures between administrative burden and substantive 
compliance costs. 

Assumption 

Source 

Labels/Logo managers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but analysing what the 
necessary steps are that need to be taken to 
comply with it.174  
17.5h legal team, 17.5h technical team 

Interviews 

with 

organisations 
labels/logos 

two 
running 

172 Vague claims will not be banned for products that are best in class. We do not have data on the share of those products, 
but it is expected to be very small. We modelled this by using a uniform distribution. 
173 Milieu & IPSOS, 2020. To be published. 
174 The measure is relatively simple, specific, and already in line with many guidelines. It also prohibits an action instead 
of  requiring  one.  For  these  reasons  the  time  required  for  legal  analysis  is  considered  to  be  much  less  than  the  one 
considered for other measures. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 
adjusting existing 
data 
(including 
adapting  system 
retrieve 
to 
information) 
(one-off) 
Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

and 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 

and 

Retailers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

This includes an initial training of managers and 

Interviews 

with 

employees 
0.5h managers and 14h employees 

organisations 
labels/logos 

This includes gathering data about the label/logo and 

Interviews 

with 

adjusting internal procedures and systems to 
systematically collect, analyse and disclose the 
necessary information  

organisations 
labels/logos 

two 
running 

two 
running 

210h for those labels/logos that currently do comply with 
at least one the criterion (based on the analysis of 
the  ecolabels  listed  in  the  ecolabelindex.com  that 
would be about 94%) 

This includes re-designing the websites to include the 

information required by the measure 

70h employees 

Market research 

- 
Internal  inspections  involve  0.25h  of  a  manager  and 
0.75h  of  an  employee.  We  assume  that  internal 
inspections already take place in the baseline and 
that the incremental burden of the measure in this 
respect is very limited. 

External inspections are expected to take place in less 
than  5%  of 
the  companies.  Each  external 
inspection  will  require  involve  0.5h  of  a  manager 
and 3.5h of an employee 

Interviews 

with 

organisations 
labels/logos 

two 
running 

Expert judgement by panel 

This includes not only identifying the new obligations 
imposed by the measure but also analysing the 
necessary steps that need to be taken to comply 
with it  

SME: 3.5h legal team, 1h commercial team 
This includes an initial training of managers and key 

employees 

SME: 0.5h manager + 1h key employees 
Large enterprises: 1h managers + 2h key employees 

Expert  judgment  by  panel 
for 
based  on  data 
previous measures 

Expert  judgment  by  panel 
for 
based  on  data 
previous measures 

Substantive compliance costs 

Assumption 

Source 

Labels/Logo managers  

Familiarization 
with the measure 
(one-off) 

Training 
(one-off) 

Retrieving 
relevant 
information  from 
existing  data  and 

As  for  administrative  burden  (we  split  these  costs 

between the two categories) 

As  for  administrative  burden  (we  split  these  costs 

between the two categories) 

As  for  administrative  burden  (we  split  these  costs 

between the two categories) 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
per 

new 

adjusting existing 
data 
(including 
adapting  system 
to 
retrieve 
information) 
(one-off) 
Producing 
data  
(one-off 
model) 
get 
to 
Fee 
approval  from  EU 
body 
for 
measure 2.3.4 
Designing 
placing 
information 
material 
Adjust  forms  and 
tables (one-off) 

(only 

and 

These costs are passed on to the companies applying 

to the label/logo, so they are accounted 
accordingly (see below) 

EUR [1 000, 2 000] every two years  

Based on data for EU 

Ecolabel 

- 

- 
As  for  administrative  burden  (we  split  these  costs 

between the two categories) 

Inspections 
(internal 
external) 
Manufacturers and Service Providers  

and 

Producing 
data  
(one-off 
model) 

new 

per 

This  includes  the  costs  of  having  to  carry  out  a  third-
party  verification  in  the  case  of  labels/logos  that 
currently  do  not  do  it  and  that  are  passed  on  to 
companies applying for the label/logo 

Share  of  logos/labels  that  do  not  require  third-party 

verification in the baseline: 46% 

Number of products awarded with a given label/logo (in 

the baseline, average): 25 666 

Incremental  cost  of  a  third-party  verification:  EUR 

388/per year 

Interviews with two 
organisations running 
labels/logos 

Ecolabelindex.com 
Data on the number of 
products with EU 
ecolabel, Fair trade, 
Nordic Swan 

Enforcement costs 

It is assumed that the measure would not require significant additional resources on top of 
the existing ones to enforce UCPD. In fact, some of the interviewed CPC authorities even 
indicated that the measure might lead to savings as it will help them tackle the issue of lack 
of transparency and reliability of labels/logos more easily (less  resources  are needed to 
substantiate their assessment). For these Member States we considered that the measure 
does not bring incremental costs. For the others, we assume that one Full Time equivalent 
will work to monitor (50%), carry out inspections (40%) and handle complaints (10%). 

For  all  Member  States,  we  assumed  35h  for  two  people  getting  familiarized  with  the 
measure and adjust the internal procedures to start enforcing the measure. 16 employees 
will receive a 7h training. 
The costs of an ADR body adjudication and of a court adjudication were obtained from the 
Impact Assessment of CPC authorities and supporting study175. 

175 European Commission, Support study for the Impact Assessment on the review of the CPC Regulation 2006/2004/EC: 
Commission, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cpc_review_support_study_1_en.pdf 
SWD(2016) 164 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0164&from=EN . 

European 

and 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In the case of measure 2.3.C, all labels/logos will need to be pre-approved by an EU body. 
The costs of setting up and running the EU body were considered to be around EUR 4.02 
million176 per year. 

Impact on monetisable consumer welfare 

The approach to quantification of the impact of the measure on the monetisable consumer 
welfare was the following: 

Step 1. Estimate the percentage of products carrying labels/logos that will become 

- 
more transparent and reliable if the measure is implemented.177 

Step 2. Estimate the share of consumers that were purchasing those products (in 

- 
the baseline) and that are willing to pay to be sure that the information is trustworthy. 

Step 3. Estimate how much these consumers are willing to pay for more 

- 
trustworthy information for those sales covered by the measure.178 

In the scenario where we assume that the measure will increase the level of trust 

- 
of consumers on labels/logos, and that for that reason more consumers (than in the 
baseline) will purchase products that are more sustainable, then the monetisation of the 
benefits of the new demand was done by: 

Step 4. Estimate the share of consumers that were not purchasing those “more 

- 
sustainable” products (in the baseline) and that would start doing it as a result of the 
measure. 

Step 5. Estimate the surplus of these new consumers based on their stated 

- 
willingness to pay to have products with trustworthy labels/logos. 

Assumption 

Source 

Consumers 
that 
always  buy  more 
environmentally 
friendly  products 
(when available) 
Consumers 
that 
will  start  trusting 
information 
the 
buying 
and 
sustainable 
products  more 
often 
Willingness 
pay 
trustworthy 
environmental 
information 

to 
for  having 

15% 

Consumer survey  

Three scenarios were developed in line with what was 

described for measure 2.2.1 

  Existing demand: 0.18% (average, depends on the 

Consumer survey  

product) 

  New demand: 4.91% (average, depends on the 

product) 

costs 

setting 

Source: 

176 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2016/EN/SWD-2016-303-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF  
177 We do not have data on volume but on sales, so we had to assume proportionality between the share of products and 
the share of sales. 
178 We assume the costs of the products with vague non-substantiated claims and with vague substantiated claims is 
similar. 

BEREC 

running 

office. 

and 

up 

136 

 
 
 
                                                           
Sales 
scope 

within 

Products with labels/logos: 10% (average)  
Share of labels/logos not fully complying: 94% 
Sales within scope: 10% X 94% 

Study  on  “Environmental 
claims 
the  EU: 
in 
Inventory and reliability 
assessment”.179 

Mystery  shopping  carried 
out in the context of the 
present study 
Ecolabelindex.com 

179 Milieu & IPSOS, 2020. To be published. 

137 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 5: ADDITIONAL DATA AND EXPLANATION OF ESTIMATES OF CONSUMERS AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

This annex presents in more details data and estimates of the impacts of the problems 
identified in Section 2 above on consumers and the environment.  

1. 

Problem 1:  Consumers lack  reliable  information  at the point of  sale to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices 

Table 1: Estimated loss of consumer welfare180 due to suboptimal choices for lack of 
reliable information on the environmental sustainability of products 

Sub-problems 

Loss of consumer welfare 

S-P 1: Lack of reliable environmental 
information 

Between  EUR  900  million181  and  2  100  
million per year182 

S-P 2: Lack of reliable information on 
lifespan 

Between  EUR  966  million183  and  1  119 
million per year184  

S-P 3: Lack of reliable information on 
reparability 

Between EUR 900 million185 per year and 
1 300 million per year186 

1. 

ICF Estimates 

1.1. 

Sub-Problem  1.1:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  products’ 
environmental characteristics  

Consequences on Consumers 

The  main  consequence  of  the  lack  of  reliable  information  for  consumers  is  consumer 
detriment  as  a  result  of  sub-optimal  choices.  This  consumer  detriment  can  be  roughly 
estimated either by using the consumers’ willingness to pay for reliable information on the 

Non-realised  consumer  surplus  because  consumers  are  not  able  to  select  more  environmentally  friendly 

Estimated by multiplying the share of consumers willing to pay to have environmental information available 

180  
This consumer detriment has been estimated by using two  methods: the consumers’  willingness to pay  for 
reliable information on the environmental impacts/characteristics for all products and the non-realised consumer surplus 
because consumers are not able to select more environmentally friendly products. 
181  
for all products and EUR 5.32 (average). 
182  
products. 
183  
from the consumer survey. 
184  
This is a conservative approach as it only covers household appliances, electronic and IT products, cars sofas 
and seats and mattresses. Furthermore, it only considers consumers that are willing to pay more than 10% of the price of 
a good for an additional year of lifespan and that only less than half will not be able to find an alternative within the 
acceptable price range. 
185  
186  

157 million willing to pay on average EUR 5.53 per year for the information (from the consumer survey). 
Non-realised consumer surplus because consumers are not able to select more reparable products 

161 million consumers willing to pay on average EUR 5.88 per year for the information, in line with the data 

138 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
impacts/characteristics 

environmental 
the 
nonrealised-  consumer  surplus  because  consumers  are  not  able  to  select  more 
environmentally  friendly  products187.  Consequently,  the  opportunity  cost  of  this  sub-
problem to consumers is roughly estimated to be between EUR 0.9188 and 2.1 billion189 per 
year (depending on the adopted approach).190  

for  all  products;  or  by  estimating 

Table 2: Estimated loss of consumer monetisable welfare due to sub-optimal choices for 

lack of reliable information on environmental characteristics of products (per 
year) 

Loss of consumer welfare 
(million euros, prices 2019) 

Large Household Appliances 
Small Household Appliances 
Electronics and IT goods 
Clothes & Footwear 
Furniture 
Cars 
Cosmetics and personal care 
Cleaning products 
Food & Drinks 
Hospitality and restaurants 
Housing, energy, water, etc. 
provision 
Transportation 
Other 
Total 

3 
4 
26 
97 
38 
1 
12 
4 
228 
152 
40 

170 
539 
 1,315 
Source: ICF calculations based on evidence from various sources 

Consequences for the Market 

Market shares of more environmentally friendly products are lower than they would be if 
consumers would be aware of the environmental characteristics of their purchases (see 
ICF estimation in table below).  

i.e.,  between  2% 

187 According to the survey, on average consumers would be willing to pay an additional 2.3% to 3.5% of the price of a 
product  to  have  an  identical  product  that  would  be  more  environmentally  sustainable.  However,  frequently  “greener 
products” have higher prices than “non-greener” ones, often 10% or more based on reviewed literature. Consequently, 
for  the  calculations  we  only  considered  the  percentage  of  consumers  that  would  be  willing  to  pay  10%  or  more  for 
“greener”  products, 
example 
https://eng.mst.dk/sustainability/sustainable-consumption-and-production/green-nordic-retail/what-retailers-can-
do/downstream-activities/. 
188 Estimated by multiplying the share of consumers willing to pay to have environmental information available for all 
products and EUR 5.32 (average).  
189 The methodology is described in the accompanying study. 
190 These estimations have limitations due to the lack of data and the need to rely on non-representative data or on expert 
judgment to fill the gaps. 

and  5%  depending  on 

the  product.  See 

for 

139 

 
 
                                                           
Indirectly, the fact that consumers cannot compare products based on their environmental 
characteristics leads to fewer incentives for companies to improve the environmental 
performance of their products.191 

Consequences for the Environment 

The  opportunity  costs  to  the  climate  and  environment  today  for  not  providing  this 
information are equal to the gains to the environment resulting from consumers buying 
more environmentally friendly products if this information were to be available. 

We assessed these costs for two scenarios192 regarding how much more “environmentally 
friendly” the purchased alternatives would be compared to the current situation 5% and 
10% more “environmentally friendly”. Table 3. Shows the results of this calculation. 

Table 3: Possible environmental impacts of shifting demand towards more 

environmentally friendly products 

Climate Change (per year) 

(MtCO2e per year; EUROS 
EUR 34 - 68193 per tonne 
CO2e) 

5% scenario 

1.1 MtCO2e 

10% scenario 

2.2 MtCO2e 

EUR 40 million 

EUR 80 million 

Particulate matter (deaths per 
year; VSL194 per year - euros) 

 80 death 

160 deaths 

EUR 385 million 

EUR 770 million 

Acidification (109 mol H+ 
eq) 

Water use (billion m3 water 
eq) 

Resource use, fossils (EJ) 

0.008 

1.5 

0.015 

0.016 

3 

0.03 

191 See: European Commission, 2012. Impact Assessment on Building the Single Market for Green Products: Facilitating 
better  and  credible  information  on  environmental  performance  of  products  and  organisations,  which  supports  its 
conclusions, amongst other, on available evidence that energy labelling has increased the share of more efficient products 
on the market. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/ia_report.pdf. 
192 There is a lack of data on how much more “environmentally friendly” the products purchased by consumers would 
be if this information would be available. 
193 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Methodology for the economic assessment of EBRD projects 
with high greenhouse gas emissions,  2020, available at: https://www.ebrd.com/news/publications/institutional-
documents/methodology-for-the-economic-assessment-of-ebrd-projects-with-high-greenhouse-
gasemissions.html  

194 “Based on national statistics, the Value of Statistical Life (VOSL) has been estimated at EUR 400,000 per fatality 
and EUR 65,000 per injury. In addition, a value of EUR 13,500 per casualty has been estimated to cover direct medical 
and 
at: 
Source: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf  

associated  with 

administrative 

accidents.” 

available 

guide 

CBA 

costs 

140 

 
 
                                                           
Resource use, minerals and 
metals (kt Sb eq) 

Source: ICF own calculations 

0.005 

0.01 

1.2. 

Sub-Problem  1.2:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  products’ 
lifespan  

Consequences on Consumers 

The main consequence of the lack of reliable information for consumers is non-realised 
consumer  surplus  and  potential  consumer  personal  detriment  as  a  result  of  sub-optimal 
choices. In fact, according to EC Study on “The durability of products”, goods that have 
longer lifespans generally have a lower TCC compared to the standard option, mostly due 
to postponing the purchase of the replacement appliance. 

These losses can be roughly estimated either by using the consumers’ willingness to pay 
for reliable information on the lifespan for all products, or by estimating the non-realised 
consumer  surplus  because  consumers  are  not  able  to  select  goods  that  last  longer195. 
Consequently, the opportunity cost of this sub-problem to consumers is estimated to be 
around EUR 1 billion per year. 

Table 4: Estimated consumer losses due to sub-optimal choices for lack of reliable 

information on environmental characteristics of products (impact of one year of 
lack of reliable information) 

Product category 

Large Household Appliances 

Cookers and Ovens 
Dishwasher 
Microwaves 
Refrigerator 
Washing Machines 

Small Household Appliances 

Vacuum cleaners 
Small Kitchen appliances 
Irons 
Hair clippers 
Hair dryers 
Electric Kettles 
Coffee Machines 

Share of products that 
could be replaced by 
an alternative that 
would last at least one 
additional year 
2.7% 
2.7% 
2.9% 
2.7% 
2.4% 
3.1% 
2.9% 
2.9% 
3.1% 
3.1% 
2.9% 
2.9% 
2.9% 
2.9% 

195 The approach used to do estimations is described in the accompanying study. 

141 

Consumer  losses  
(million euros – prices 
2019) 

87 
23 
15 
4 
21 
5 
102 
16 
47 
3 
5 
3 
2 
18 

 
                                                           
Electronics and IT goods 

Laptops and tablets 
TVs 
Mobile phones 

Furniture 

Sofas and Seats 
Mattresses 

Total 

2.9% 
3.4% 
2.7% 
2.5% 

3.4% 
3.4% 

787 
154 
76 
411 
- 
90 
54 

1,119 

Source: ICF calculations based on evidence from various sources 

Consequences for the Environment 

While it is not expected that all goods are only replaced at the end of their lives (as for 
example, fashion and other factors also play a role in the decision to replace a good), there 
is  evidence  that  a  significant  share  of  consumers  will  keep  goods  for  a  long  time.  For 
example,  the  results  of  the  Eurobarometer  503  show  that  the  main  reasons  that  led 
respondents  to  replace  their  digital  devices  were  that  the  device  broke  (38%),  the 
performance of the device had significantly deteriorated (30%) and certain applications or 
software stopped working on the device (18%).196 

Increasing the market share of products with a longer lifespan is generally197,198 expected 
to  contribute  to  a  reduction  of  resource  depletion,  waste,  emissions  and  other 

196 European Commission, Attitudes towards the impact of digitalisation on daily lives, 2019. 
197 Some studies point out that some large household appliances might be an exception if newer models are significantly 
more  energy  efficient  than  the  models  own  by  consumers.  In  this  case,  it  is  possible  that  the  environmental  costs 
associated with materials, production, distribution and disposal of buying an appliance sooner than later are outweighed 
by the environmental benefits related to the energy savings of using a more efficient model. See for example: Iraldo, F., 
Facheris,  C.  and  Nucci,  B.Is  product  durability  better  for  environment  and  for  economic  efficiency?  A  comparative 
assessment  applying  LCA  and  LCC  to  two  energy-intensive  products.  Journal  of  Cleaner  Production, 140,  pp.1353-
1364.2017.; Ardente, F. and Mathieux, F. Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: method 
and application. Journal of cleaner production, 74, pp.62-73. 2014; and Reale, F., Castellani, V., Hischier, R., Corrado, 
S. and Sala, S.. Consumer Footprint-Basket of Products indicator on Household appliances. Technical report. European 
Commission, Joint Research Centre. 2019. 
198  The  results of  a  JRC  study  showed  that,  “for  the global  warming potential, prolonging  the  lifetime  of a  washing 
machine and dishwasher case studies is environmentally beneficial when the potential replacement product has up to 15 
% less energy consumption during the use. For the abiotic depletion potential impact, mainly influenced by the use of 
materials during the production phase, prolonging the lifetime of both machines was shown always to be beneficial, 
regardless of the energy efficiency of newer products. Freshwater eutrophication showed a great influence by the impact 
of  the  detergent  used  during  the  use  phase;  thus,  prolonging  the  device’s  lifetime  is  still  beneficial  for  this  impact 
category,  although  the  benefits  are  negligible  compared  to  the  life  cycle  impacts  of  the  products.”.  See 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/72cd56e4-bab7-11e6-9e3c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-
PDF/source-126402524. 

142 

 
 
 
                                                           
environmental  costs  associated  with  the  production,  distribution  and  disposal  life-cycle 
stages199,200,201,202,203  

The opportunity costs to the climate and environment today for not providing information 
on the lifespan are equal to the gains to the environment resulting from consumers buying 
products that would last longer if this information were to be available. Table 5 shows the 
results of the assessed environmental impact per year following the approach described in 
the accompanying study. 

Table 5: Possible environmental impacts of shifting demand towards products that would 

have a +1 year of lifespan (per year of lack of reliable information) 

Appliances, Electronics and ICT and other 
electronics, sofas and mattresses 

Climate Change (per year) 

(MtCO2e per year; EUROS EUR 
34 - 68204 per tonne CO2e) 

Particulate matter (deaths per 
year; VSL per year - euros) 

WEEE (tonnes) 

1 MtCO2e 

EUR 34 million 

27 deaths 

EUR 131 million 

+/- 30,000 

1.3. 

Sub-Problem  1.3:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  products’ 
reparability  

Consequences on Consumers 

The main consequence of the lack of reliable information for consumers is non realised 
surplus and/or personal consumer detriment as a result of sub-optimal choices. This can be 
roughly estimated by using the consumers’ willingness to pay for reliable information on 
the reparability for all products or per product per type of information.205 Consequently, 
the opportunity cost of this sub-problem to consumers is estimated to be around EUR 0.9 
and 1.3 billion.). 

Environment 

The opportunity costs to the climate and environment today for not providing information 
on the lifespan are equal to the gains to the environment resulting from consumers buying 

for 

European 

Secretariat. 

199  See  for  example  Estevan,  H.,  Schaefer,  B.  and  Adell,  A., 2017. Life  Cycle  Costing  State  of  the art  report.  Local 
at: 
Sustainability, 
Governments 
https://sppregions.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Life_Cycle_Costing_SoA_Report.pdf.   
200 Bakker C, Wang F, Huisman J, Den Hollander M: Products that go round: Exploring product life extension through 
design. J Clean Prod 2014, 69:10–16. 
201 Bakker, C., den Hollander, M., Van Hinte, E. and Zijlstra, Y., 2019. Products that Last 2.0: Product Design for Circular 
Business Models. BIS Publishers. 
202 Cooper, T. ed., 2016. Longer lasting products: Alternatives to the throwaway society. CRC Press. 
203 Ruth Mugge, Jan P. L. Schoormans & Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein, 2005. Design Strategies to Postpone Consumers' 
Product Replacement: The Value of a Strong Person-Product Relationship, The Design Journal, 8:2, 38-48. 
204 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Methodology for the economic assessment of EBRD projects 
with high greenhouse gas emissions,  2020.  
205  Both questions were asked in the consumers survey 

Available 

143 

 
 
 
                                                           
products that would last longer if this information were to be available. The table below 
shows the estimated key environmental impacts for the scenario where the repair would 
have increased the lifespan of the broken product by 1 year (this was calculated following 
the approach described in the accompanying study). 

Table 6: Possible environmental impacts of shifting demand towards products 
that are easier to repair (per year of lack of reliable information) 

Appliances, Electronics and ICT and other 
electronics, sofas and mattresses 

Climate Change (per year) 

(MtCO2e per year; EUROS EUR 
34 - 68206 per tonne CO2e) 

Particulate matter (deaths per 
year; VSL per year - euros) 

WEEE (tonnes) 

0.4 MtCO2e 

EUR 13 million 

11 deaths 

EUR 51 million 

+/- 10,000 

2. 

Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products 

Table 7: Estimated consumer detriment linked to misleading information and 

practices  

Sub-problems 

Estimated consumer detriment 

S-P 1: Early obsolescence 

EUR 1 600 million per year207 

S-P 2: Greenwashing 

EUR 500 million per year208 

2. 

ICF Estimates 

2.1. 

Sub-Problem 2.1: Consumers are sold products that do not last as long 
as they could or consumers expect 

Consequences for consumers 

Consumer  detriment  as  consumers  pay  more  than  they  would  be  willing  to  pay  for  the 
“effective”  lifespan  of  goods  with  premature  obsolescence  and  they  suffer  personal 

206 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Methodology for the economic assessment of EBRD projects 

with high greenhouse gas emissions,  2020. 

207  Estimated  consumer  detriment  due  to  premature  obsolescence,  defined  as  failures  that  happen before  the  product 
reaches 60% of its expected lifespan. 
208 Consumer detriment due to sub-optimal choices as consumers might chose a product over other alternatives (that are 
in reality no less environmentally friendly that that product) based on misleading claims. Estimation assuming consumers 
pay a premium of 2.5% of the price of the product. 

144 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
detriment  related  to  the  need  to  repair  and/or  replace  the  goods  earlier  than  they  could 
reasonably expect when they purchased the good. 

Based on available data we estimate that the consumer detriment as a result of one year of 
this practice would be around EUR 1.6 billion (see approach in the accompanying study). 

Table 7: Estimated consumer detriment due to premature obsolescence (defined as 

failures that happen before the product reaches 60% of its expected lifespan, 
millions of euros in 2019 prices)  

Product 

Method cost of replacement 

Large Household Appliances 

Cookers and Ovens 

Dishwasher 

Microwaves 

Refrigerator 

Washing Machines 

Small Household Appliances 

Vacuum cleaners 

Small Kitchen appliances 

Irons 

Hair clippers 

Hair dryers 

Electric Kettles 

Coffee Machines 

Electronics and IT goods 

Laptops and tablets 

TVs 

Mobile phones 

Total 

268.04 

53.49 

52.65 

7.05 

75.49 

20.04 

103.31 

35.57 

32.94 

2.08 

4.05 

2.64 

2.05 

22.85 

1213.38 

141.61 

150.00 

521.79 

1,584 

Consequences for the Environment 

Early failure of products leads to their early replacement and, therefore, to environmental 
impacts  related  to  the  production,  transport  and  disposal  of  products.  The  table  below 
presents the estimations of the possible environmental impacts of premature obsolescence. 

145 

 
 
Table 8: Possible environmental impacts of premature obsolescence (defined as failures 

that happen before the product reaches 60% of its expected lifespan and as a 
consequence of one year of this practice, millions of euros in 2019 prices) 

Climate Change (per year) 

(MtCO2e per year; EUROS EUR 
34 - 68209 per tonne CO2e) 

Particulate matter (deaths per 
year; VSL210 per year - euros) 

WEEE (tonnes) 

2.2. 

Impacts 

1.874 MtCO2e 

EUR 64 million 

54 deaths 

EUR 256 million 

51,000 

Sub-Problem  2.2:  Consumers  are  faced  with  the  practice  of  making 
unclear 
claims 
(“Greenwashing”) 

not  well-substantiated 

environmental 

or 

Consequences for Consumers 

Greenwashing  can  harm  consumers  through  consumer  detriment  (due  to  sub-optimal 
choices) as they might choose a product over other alternatives (that are in reality no less 
environmentally friendly than that product) based on misleading claims, sometimes paying 
a premium in order to buy a supposedly more environmentally friendly product. Based on 
the available evidence, we estimate that the consumer detriment as a result of this practice 
is at least around 0.5 billion a year. This is conservative estimate based on the willingness 
to pay for trustworthy information, and it is likely that the losses for consumers are higher. 

Consequences for the environment 

The  fact  that  consumers  end  up  purchasing  products  that  are  not  as  environmentally 
friendly  as  existing  alternatives  lead  to  undesired  environmental  impacts  (i.e.,  the 
difference  between  the  environmental  impact  of  the  purchased  product  based  on 
misleading  claims  and  the  environmental  impact  of  the  product  that  would  have  been 
purchased in the absence of greenwashing)211. Please see estimation of the impacts in the 
table below 

Table 9: Possible environmental impacts of greenwashing (as a consequence of one year 

of this practice, millions of euros in 2019 prices) 

Climate Change (per year) 

1.4 MtCO2e 

2.8 MtCO2e 

5% scenario             

10% scenario 

209 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Methodology for the economic assessment of EBRD projects with 

high greenhouse gas emissions,  2020.   
210  
“Based on national statistics, the Value of Statistical Life (VOSL) has been estimated at EUR 400,000 per 
fatality and EUR 65,000 per injury. In addition, a value of EUR 13,500 per casualty has been estimated to cover direct 
medical 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf 
211  
https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2018-057_premature_obsolescence.pdf 

BEUC,  2018.  Factsheet  –  Premature  obsolescence  when  products  fail  too  quickly.  Available  at:  

accidents.”  Source:  CBA  guide 

associated  with 

administrative 

available 

costs 

and 

146 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
(MtCO2e per year; EUROS 
EUR 34 per tonne CO2e) 

Particulate matter (deaths per 
year; VSL per year - euros) 

Acidification (109 mol H+ eq) 

Water use (billion m3 water 
eq) 

Resource use, fossils (EJ) 

Resource use, minerals and 
metals (kt Sb eq) 

EUR 50 million 

EUR 100 million 

 80 premature death 

200 premature deaths 

EUR 475 million 

EUR 950 million 

0.0085 

1.8 

0.02 

0.005 

0.019 

3.6 

0.04 

0.01 

Source: ICF estimations based on a variety of sources 

2.3. 

Sub-Problem 2.3: Consumers are faced with a the use of sustainability 
labels and digital information tools that are not always transparent or 
credible 

Consequences for Consumers 

This  problem  can  harm  consumers  because  they  purchase  products  based  on  the 
assumption that a certain label is reliable when in fact it is not and because they want to 
purchase more sustainable products (and even pay a premium) but they do not do it because 
they do not trust or are confused due to the multitude of labels. However, it is not possible 
to quantify the detriment as labels cover various sustainability attributes.  

Consequences for the Environment 

The  fact  that  consumers  end  up  purchasing  products  that  are  not  as  environmentally 
friendly  as  existing  alternatives  lead  to  undesired  environmental  impacts  (i.e.,  the 
difference  between  the  environmental  impact  of  the  purchased  product  based  on 
misleading  claims  and  the  environmental  impact  of  the  product  that  would  have  been 
purchased  in  the  absence  of  greenwashing)212.  These  losses  are,  however,  difficult  to 
quantify as many sustainability labels and logos cover other sustainability aspects that are 
not related to the environment pillar of sustainability. 

212  BEUC,  2018.  Factsheet  –  Premature  obsolescence  when  products  fail 
https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2018-057_premature_obsolescence.pdf 

too  quickly.  Available  at:  

147 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT EXISTING AND UPCOMING NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES 

The table below presents  national  legislative initiatives, either already  adopted or in  the pipeline, and which  aim at  addressing the problems  and  sub-
problems identified in this Impact Assessment.  

Provision of information 

Untrustworthy information or practices 

Durability 

Reparability 

France  

France, Slovenia 
and Finland  

Environmental 
information 

Not identified  

Obsolescence 

Greenwashing 

Sustainable 

labels and 
logos 

France and 
Greece 

Denmark, Finland 
and Sweden 

Austria, Germany,  
and Sweden 

Legislation and 
initiatives at  

national level 

Durability index 

Reparability index 

Ban 

Ban / Prohibition 

France – Durability 
Index: introduced by 
the Circular Economy 
Law 2020, it will 
integrate/replace the 
Reparability Index 
from 2024. It obliges 
producers, importers, 
distributors or any 
other person placing 
electrical and 
electronic products on 
the market to inform 
consumers on 
reliability and 
robustness of a list of 
products to be 
established.  

France – Reparability 
Index:  The Circular 
Economy Law obliges 
producers, importers, 
distributors or any 
other person placing 
electrical and 
electronic products on 
the market to provide 
the reparability index 
of their product to 
sellers of their products 
or any other person 
requesting it. The aim 
is to inform consumers 
about the ability to 
repair five groups of 
products (televisions, 
smartphones, laptops, 

Sweden - Prohibition 
on misleading 
statements: The 
Swedish Marketing Act 
prohibits traders from 
making incorrect 
statement and other 
representations that are 
misleading, specifically 
statement relating to a 
'product's origin, uses 
and risks such as 
impact on health or 
environment.   

France – 
Criminalisation of 
planned 
obsolescence: 
Consumer Code and 
Law on energy 
transition for green 
growth defines and 
forbids the practise of 
planned obsolescence. 
In case of breach of 
this provision, the 
person responsible for 
placing the product on 
the market can be 
sentenced to two years' 
imprisonment and a 
fine of EUR 300,000. 

Public websites with 
feedback labels and 
logo  

Austria – Website 
Buy Consciously: The 
Federal Ministry for 
climate protection, 
energy, mobility, 
innovation and 
technology developed a 
website that provides 
information on 200 
sustainable labels in 
Austria. 

Germany - 
Siegelklarheit (label 
clarity): It is a portal 
that explains and 
evaluates labels used 
by manufacturers 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
placing products on the 
German markets. It 
considers sustainability 
and social standards. 

 Sweden – The 
Service Hello 
Consumer of the 
Swedish Consumer 
Agency: It provides 
consumers with 
information on a 
number of 
environmental and 
sustainability related 
topics, including 
information on 
ecolabels 

lawnmowers and 
washing machine) 

Information on spare 
parts and/or repair 
manuals and/or 
software updates 

France – Obligation 
to inform consumers 
on the availability of 
spare parts: The 
Circular Economy Law 
establishes that 
manufacturers and 
importers have the 
obligation to inform 
retailers on the 
availability or non-
availability of essential 
spare parts and of the 
time period during 
which they will be 
available. It also 
establishes that the 
retailer has the 
obligation to inform 
consumers on the 
updates necessary to 
maintain the 
conformity of the 
product, how to install 
these updates and the 
consequences of 
refusing to install them.  

Slovenia – Consumer 
Protection Act: It 
obliges the producer 
and/or seller, in case of 
obligatory conformity 
guarantee for certain 
types of technical 

149 

France – 
Criminalisation of 
intentional 
irreparability and 
deliberate 
obstruction of access 
to repair 
information: Circular 
Economy Law 
criminalise any 
technique used by the 
person responsible for 
placing the product on 
the market, which 
makes it impossible to 
repair or recondition 
outside its 
approved/licensed 
repairers. 

Provision of spare 
parts and repair 
service 

France – Obligation 
to provide spare 
parts for a certain 
time period: The 
Circular Economy Law 
requires producers of 
household appliances, 
small IT and 
telecommunications 
equipment, screens and 
monitors to make spare 
parts available for a 
minimum duration of 
five years.  

Greece – Provision of 
technical service for 
repair and 
maintenance and 
supply of spare parts:  
Consumer Protection 
Law establishes that 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the supplier (including 
both the manufacturer 
and the retailer) of new 
durable goods must 
ensure that consumers 
are consistently 
provided with 
technical services for 
maintenance and repair 
of these goods, as well 
as supply of spare 
parts, for at least 2 
years from delivery.  

goods213 to provide 
information on the 
duration of services for 
maintenance of goods, 
spare parts, and 
supplementary devices 
(at least 3 years after 
the elapse of the 
guarantee).  
It also obliges the 
producer and/or seller, 
in case of obligatory 
conformity guarantee 
for certain types of 
technical goods214, to 
provide an assembly 
manual and a list of 
authorised services 
centres (at least 3 years 
after the elapse of the 
guarantee). This 
guarantee is provided 
on top of EU 
harmonised 2-year 
guarantee. 

Finland – Legislative 
ban on untrue or 
misleading 
information: the 
Finnish Consumer 
Protection legislation 
introduces a ban to 
provide untrue or 
misleading information 
in marketing or during 
the course of the 
customer relationship 
including information 
especially relating to 

213 Household appliances, vehicles and similar products, machines for agricultural and small-area cultivation, information technology products, sport equipment, products in the field of radio communications, 
audio and video technology and devices connected thereto, electro-medical devices intended for personal use, fire protection devices and wastewater treatment plants.  
214 Household appliances, vehicles and similar products, machines for agricultural and small-area cultivation, information technology products, sport equipment, products in the field of radio communications, 
audio and video technology and devices connected thereto, electro-medical devices intended for personal use, fire protection devices and wastewater treatment plants.  

150 

 
                                                           
 
 
'the availability and 
need for maintenance, 
repairs and spare parts'.  

Legislative 
proposals 
national level 

at 

Belgium and Italy 

Belgium, Italy, 
Spain and 
Portugal 

Not identified  

Belgium, Italy and 
Portugal 

Not identified  

Not identified  

Belgium – Proposals 
for a Bill aiming at 
combating planned 
and premature 
obsolescence and 
increasing the 
possibilities of repair 
(9 November 2019): it 
prohibits producers 
from engaging in 
planned and premature 
obsolescence practices; 
it proposes to include 
in pre-contractual 
information the 
reparability and non-
reparability of 
products, as well as the 
length of time of spare 
parts are available; it 
suggests that all 
products have on the 
surface, on the 
packaging, and on 
advertisement, an 
indication of the 
lifetime of the product 
and the possibility for 
repair in a legible, 
apparent and 
unequivocal manner. 
Lifespan is expressed 
in hours, month or 
years or, where 
relevant, in number of 

Belgium – Proposals 
for a Bill aiming at 
combating planned 
and premature 
obsolescence and 
increasing the 
possibilities of repair 
(9 November 2019): it 
prohibits producers 
from engaging in 
planned and premature 
obsolescence practices; 
it proposes to include 
in pre-contractual 
information the 
reparability and non-
reparability of 
products, as well as the 
length of time of spare 
parts are available; it 
suggests that all 
products have on the 
surface, on the 
packaging, and on 
advertisement, an 
indication of the 
lifetime of the product 
and the possibility for 
repair in a legible, 
apparent and 
unequivocal manner. 
Lifespan is expressed 
in hours, month or 
years or, where 
relevant, in number of 

151 

Belgium – Proposal 
for a bill to address 
planned obsolescence 
and support repair 
economy (19 July 
2019): This proposal 
introduces a definition 
of planned 
obsolescence and bans 
it. In case of breach of 
this provision, it 
provides a sanction for 
the producer. It also 
suggests the creation of 
a product passport, an 
extension of the legal 
guarantee to 5 years. It 
also provides that it 
can be decided to 
require manufacturers 
and importers to 
provide professional 
sellers and repairers 
with essential spare 
parts. 

Belgium – Proposal 
for a Bill to address 
organised 
obsolescence and 
support the circular 
economy (7 January 
2020): It introduces a 
definition of organised 
obsolescence and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
operating cycles.  The 
obligation to provide 
information on lifespan 
to consumers and to 
ensure that the product 
does not fail earlier 
than the indicated 
lifespan is on the 
producer. 

operating cycles.  The 
obligation to provide 
information on lifespan 
to consumers and to 
ensure that the product 
does not fail earlier 
than the indicated 
lifespan is on the 
producer. 

Italy – information 
obligation on the 
durability of the 
product (9 July 2018): 
This legislative 
proposal would 
introduce an obligation 
to inform consumers 
on the "guaranteed 
lifespan and the 
presumable lifespan"215 
of products on the 
packaging. It is the 
producer who is in 
charge of providing the 
information and 
guaranteeing the 
correct durability of the 
product. 

Italy – Consumer 
rights on lifespan and 
possibility of 
reparations at 
accessible prices (9 
July 2018): This 
legislative proposal 
would recognise the 
consumer's right to be 
informed by producers 
on the possibility of 
reparation at accessible 
prices. 

to 

of 

Spain  –  Reparability 
index 
(15  March 
2021):  This legislative 
would 
proposal 
a 
consists 
classification 
of 
electrical and electronic 
equipment on a scale of 
zero 
ten  points 
awarded  based  on  five 
objective 
criteria. 
Awareness-raising 
actions will accompany 
the  Reparability  Index. 
an 
It  will 
opportunity 
the 
industry  to  have  a  new 
for 
incentive 
innovation 
eco-
design  and  repairable, 

create 
for 

in 

prohibits it. If the 
product is considered 
affected by organised 
obsolescence, it is the 
producer who is 
deemed responsible 
unless the producer is 
established abroad, in 
which case the trader is 
considered responsible.   
It proposes to include 
in the pre-contractual 
information the 
lifetime of the 
products, the period 
during which spare 
parts that are essential 
for the use of the 
product are available 
in a visible and 
equivocal way on the 
packaging and 
advertisement of the 
product. It obliges 
producers to guarantee 
the availability of a 
product's spare parts -
which are essential for 
its use - at a reasonable 
price. 

Italy – Definition and 
prohibition of 
planned obsolescence 
(9 July 2020): This 
legislative proposal 
would define and ban 
the practice of planned 
obsolescence and 
introduce criminal 
sanctions for the 
producer or distributor 
of goods who mislead 
the consumers on a 

215 No methodology is proposed to assess this, yet. 

152 

 
                                                           
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
upgradeable, 
sustainable  technology 
without obsolescence.  

Portugal – 
reparability (4 
November 2019): 
Legislative proposal 
requiring that 
producers and 
importers must ensure 
the availability of 
user’s manuals. 

number of issues 
including planned 
obsolescence. 

Portugal – Promoting 
product durability 
and combating 
planned obsolescence 
(4 November 2019): 
Legislative proposals 
to prohibit planned 
obsolescence by 
producers. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7: OVERVIEW OF EU LEGISLATION RELEVANT FOR THE PROBLEMS THE INITIATIVE AIMS TO ADDRESS 

This Annex presents in detail the interaction between the initiative subject to this Impact Assessment and existing EU legislation, as well as its interaction 
with other EU initiatives which are currently under preparation. 

Part 1 
The table below presents in a succinct way whether and to what extent the problems identified in this IA are addressed by other existing EU legislation.  

 partially addressed for all products 

fully addressed for a set of products        

 partially addressed for a set of products  

/ not addressed 

Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

Consumer 
Rights Directive 
2011/83/EU  

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Horizontal 

/ 

The Directive requires traders to provide consumers with 
information on, among others, the main characteristics of 
the  goods  or  services.  It  includes  specific  information 
requirements about the existence of the legal guarantee 
of  conformity  and  commercial  guarantees,  which  are 
related 
“durability”.  There  are,  no  explicit 
requirements regarding the other substantively analysed 
elements.  

to 

154 

 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

While the Directive promotes durability and reparability 
of  products  through  the  legal  guarantee,  the  impact  is 
limited to the minimum 2-years legal guarantee period. 

/ 

/ 

Horizontal 

and 

EU 
law/initiative 
Consumer 
Sales 
Guarantees 
Directive 
1999/44/EC, 
until  1  January 
2022  and  Sale 
of 
Goods 
Directive 
2019/771 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

sector  and  product-specific 

The  UCPD  is  a  principle-based  instrument  prohibiting 
unfair  commercial  practices.  It  operates  as  a  safety  net 
complementing 
legal 
requirements. It generally requires the traders to provide 
the  consumers  with  information  that  they  need  to  take 
informed, independent transactional decisions but it does 
not  contain  specific  information  requirements  about 
product durability or reparability.  Its general provisions 
on  unfair  practices  apply  also  to  planned  obsolescence 
and  greenwashing  practices  when  those  are  misleading 
and negatively affect consumers on the basis of a case-by-
case assessment. There are no specific provisions in these 
areas in the Directive or in its Annex I (blacklist) which sets 
out  practices  regarded  as  unfair  in  all  circumstances. 
Greenwashing is considered in the Guidance to the UCPD 
as a type of misleading claims that can be prohibited in 
accordance with the Directive. However, the absence of 
specific rules on misleading environmental claims in the 
Directive  and 
for  case-by-case 
assessment of their effects on the consumers reduces its 
potential 
this  area.  Planned 
obsolescence  could  be  considered  contrary  to  the 
professional  diligence  requirements 
in  Article  5  or 
information about planned obsolescence practices could 
be deemed material under Article 7 that, if not provided, 
could  fall  under  the  definition  of  misleading  omission. 
However, the lack of explicit rules and the need for case-
by-case assessment of the effects of the practice on the 
consumers makes it difficult to enforce in this area. 

to  be  enforced 

requirement 

the 

in 

Unfair 
Commercial 
Practices 
Directive 
2005/29/EC  

/ 

/ 

/ 

Horizontal 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

to 

tool 

labelling  scheme 

The  EU  Ecolabel  scheme  is  a  voluntary  system  covering 
the  “best  in  class”  products  in  terms  of  environmental 
performance for a given product category. It the official 
European  Union  EU  wide 
for 
environmental excellence which can be considered as an 
important 
the  proliferation  of 
avoid 
environmental labelling schemes.  
Art  6  of  the  Regulation  requires  the  criteria  for 
environmental performance to consider ‘the potential to 
reduce  environmental  impacts  due  to  durability  and 
reusability  of  the  products’.  Product  durability  and 
reparability,  being  crucial  aspects  of  the  circular 
economy, are already included in the criteria for relevant 
product groups. However, the information on how long a 
product  is  expected  or  guaranteed  to  last  is  not  given 
logo.  Often  consumers  do  not  have 
through  the 
information on the product regarding the extent to which 
durability has been considered to grant the ecolabel, but 
they can research in EU Ecolabel webpage. 

Ecolabel 

EU 
Regulation 
66/2010/EC 
and  related  EU 
Ecolabel 
criteria 

/ 

/ 

Horizontal 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ecodesign 
Directive 
2009/125/EC 
and 
Regulations 
and  voluntary 
agreements 

related 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Energy 
related 
products 

to 

energy 

efficiency 

framework  establishes  minimum 
The  Ecodesign 
requirements  on 
and  other 
environmental  aspects  via  product  design  requirements 
and,  where  relevant, 
information  requirements  for 
various  categories  of  energy  related  products.  This  is 
being  operationalised  via  implementing  regulations  per 
product  category,  in  accordance  with  regular  working 
plans (the latest available is the Working Plan 2016-2019; 
Working plan 2020-2024 is forthcoming (in 2021) setting 
out priorities and timelines for product categories. These 
regulations,  when  they  enter  into  force,    prevent  the 
worst-performing products in terms of energy efficiency 
and  other  environmental  aspects  (including  durability, 
reparability) to enter the EU market for a given product 
category. While durability requirements  have been very 
technological  methodological  and 
limited  due 
enforcement 
durability 
requirements only for 2 components of a vacuum cleaner; 
as well information on durability for lightbulbs), a series 
of reparability requirements will enter into force in March 
2021 for a number of product categories. Since the first 
Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  (2015)  the  Commission 
considers  more  systematically  durability,  reparability, 
upgrade, reuse, recyclability and recycled content aspects 
when preparing or revising Ecodesign requirements.  
In  future,  a  possible  scoring  system  on  products 
reparability,  based  on  the  JRC  method,  could  be 
considered (see also EU Energy Label below).  
Ecodesign  establishes  a  public  enforcement  mechanism 
for  non-compliance 
fines  and  possible 
(including 
withdrawal of the product from EU market) but does not 
foresee  consumer  redress/rights  in  case  a  product  (or 
component) fails to comply with specific requirements.  

challenges 

(there 

are 

In  Q4  2021,  the  Commission  plans  to  table  a  legislative 
proposal  which  will  aim  to  widen  the  scope  of  the 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

Ecodesign  Directive  to  include  the  broadest  possible 
range of products and to other  aspects of sustainability 
and circularity.  

159 

 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

Energy 
Labelling 
Framework 
Regulation 
EU/2017/1369 

/ 

The Energy labelling Framework legislation has the same 
product  scope  and  follows  a  similar  approach  and 
timeline like the Ecodesign legislation, with implementing 
options per product category in accordance with regular 
working plans.  
It  establishes  a  consistent  and  for  consumers  easy  to 
understand EU wide  labelling system with  information 
on  the energy efficiency of goods (the most prominent 
feature of the label with A-G scale), its energy use as well 
other  environmental  (e.g.  water  use,  noise) 
  and 
functional  parameters  (e.g.  washing  efficiency)  where 
relevant.  Unlike  other  claims,  all  energy  products  must 
display the claim of how much energy is used based on a 
consistent labelling system used and comparable across 
Member  States.  It  aims  to  encourage  consumers  to 
purchase  and  use  goods  which  use  less  energy  and  are 
more environmentally friendly.  
Planned  obsolescence  is  not  specifically  covered  by  the 
Regulation,  however,  Art  3 
to  planned 
obsolescence  linked  to  updates  that  could  reduce  a 
product’s  energy  efficiency  and  be  detrimental  to  the 
energy efficiency label. A European product database for 
energy labels and product information sheets (EPREL) is 
expected to be available for consumers in 2021.  
The possibility of showing a reparability score (based on a 
JRC method) will be explored in the future.  

refers 

Energy 
related 
products 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

into 

reparability, 

in  the  Union 

The  Directive  aims  to  improve  and  transform  waste 
‘circular  material 
management 
management’  and  facilitate  the  transition  to  ‘more 
sustainable  material  management  and  to  a  circular 
economy.   
It  provides  MS  with  the  opportunity  to  take  options  to 
encourage  the  design  of  products  to  reduce  their 
environmental  impacts  and  the  generation  of  waste  by 
developing, producing and marketing of products that are 
technically  durable  ‘and  easily  reparable’.  There  is  an 
obligation  to  modulate  fees  in  the  collective  Extended 
Producer’s Responsibility  (EPR) schemes based on criteria 
such  as  durability, 
reusability  and 
recyclability  as  well  as  the  presence  of  hazardous 
substances,  which,  however,  are  not  harmonized  at  EU 
level (Art. 8a). 
Member  States  must  take  options  to  prevent  waste 
generation,  including  options  to  ‘encourage  the  design, 
manufacturing,  and  use  of  products  that  are  resource-
efficient,  durable  (including  in  terms  of  life  span  and 
absence  of  planned  obsolescence),  reparable,  re-usable 
and upgradable.  
The legislation does not set out harmonized requirements 
in  relation  to  durability  and  reparability.  In  addition  to 
criteria  suggested  for  eco-modulation  of  collective  EPR 
schemes  (Articles  8,  8a),  it  rather  requires  (Article  9) 
Member  States to encourage the production of durable 
and reparable products. Member States are required to 
monitor and assess the implementation of options taken 
to prevent waste.  

Directive 
2018/851/EU 
on waste  

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Horizontal 

161 

 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

Energy  Market 
Directive 
2019/944/EU 
amending  the 
Energy 
Efficiency 
Directive 
2012/27/EU 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Horizontal 
Energy 
generatio
n and 
storage 

flexible, 

It  establishes  common  rules 
for  the  generation, 
transmission,  distribution,  energy  storage  and  supply  of 
electricity, together with consumer protection provisions, 
with  a  view  to  creating  truly  integrated  competitive, 
consumer-centred, 
transparent 
electricity markets in the Union.  
The Directive does not directly concern the areas of the 
IA,  however, 
information  elements, 
especially  with  regard  to  consumer  rights,  for  example 
when  choosing  an  energy  supplier. 
implicitly 
contributes  to  preventing  greenwashing,  as  it  ensures 
consumers are well informed.  

it  has  strong 

fair  and 

It 

The  enforcement  system  designed  to  ensure  the 
implementation  of  the  internal  market  on  electricity  is 
applicable.  

162 

 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

Renewable 
Energy 
Directive 
2018/2001/EU  
recasting 
Directive 
2009/28/EC, 
Directive 
2015/1513/EU 
and  Directive 
2013/18/EU 

/ 

/ 

labelling 

Car 
Directive 
1999/94/EC 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Horizontal 
Energy 
sources 

Cars 

163 

The  Renewable  Energy  Directive  promotes  the  use  of 
renewable  energy  sources  by  consumers.  It  primarily 
concerns the sustainability of energy  – both in terms of 
reducing the need for conventional energy by promoting 
and  facilitating  the  use  of  renewable  energy,  but  also 
ensures  the  sustainability  of  renewable  energy  itself, 
through the guarantee of origin and certification systems.  
The  Directive  has  a  strong  information  requirement, 
which,  coupled  with  the  certifications,  reduces  the 
amount of greenwashing. It requires consumers, as well 
as  other  stakeholders,  are  clearly  and  accurately 
informed, with regard to the energy options available to 
them as well as the origin of the energy. The guarantee of 
origin  ensures  suppliers  have  sourced  renewable  fuels 
(e.g.  for  biofuels).  It  also  facilitates  self-consumption  by 
legal  and  regulatory  framework  and 
clarifying  the 
ensuring that justified, fair/and non-discriminatory rules 
are applied to final or household customers.  
The  Directive  aims  to  help  consumers  buy  or  lease  cars 
which  use  less  fuel  and  thereby  emit  less  CO2  and  to 
encourage  manufacturers 
fuel 
consumption of new cars.  
The  Directive  is  a  complementary  option  to  the  CO2 
emission standards set under Regulation (EU) 2019/631. 
It  requires  the  use  of  information  tools  addressed  to 
consumers  including  a  label  showing  fuel  economy  and 
CO2 emissions to be attached to all new cars or displayed 
nearby at the point of sale and a poster or display showing 
prominently  the  official  fuel  consumption  and  CO2 
emissions data of all new car models displayed or offered 
for sale.  

reduce 

the 

to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU 
law/initiative 

Regulation (EU) 
2020/740 
on 
energy 
labelling 
tyres 

for 

Provision of information 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

/ 

/ 

Road 
transport 
tyres 

framework 

It  establishes  a 
for  the  provision  of 
harmonised  information  on  tyre  parameters  through 
labelling to allow end-users to make an informed choice 
when  purchasing  tyres,  for  the  purpose  of  increasing 
safety,  the  protection  of  health,  and  the  economic  and 
environmental efficiency of road transport, by promoting 
fuel‐efficient,  long‐lasting  and  safe  tyres  with  low  noise 
levels.  

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

EU 
law/initiative 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

Recommendati
on 
2013/179/EU 
216 on common 
for 
methods 
measuring  and 
communicating 
the 
life  cycle 
environmental 
performance of 
products  and 
organisations 
(establishing 
the 
and 
Organisation 
Environmental 
Footprint  (PEF 
OEF) 
and 
methods) 

Product 

The UCPD Guidance refers to the use of lifecycle environmental 
performance of products and organisations, referencing also the 
Commission’s PEF and OEF methods. PEF studies can be carried 
out  both  based  on  the  overall  PEF  method  (applicable  to  any 
product)  and  based  on  Product  Environmental  Footprint 
Category Rules (PEFCRs). PEFCRs are quite detailed to guarantee 
the 
the  reproducibility,  comparability  and  reliability  of 
information.  The  information  that  can  be  derived  from  a  PEF 
study or a PEFCR concerns any of the 16 environmental impacts 
in  scope,  information  about  the  most  relevant  production 
processes  (those  contributing  with  a  larger  share  to  the  total 
impact),  the  most  relevant  life  cycle  stages,  even  the  most 
relevant  emissions.  When  a  PEFCR  exists,  it  is  also  possible  to 
compare the different elements of information with those of the 
benchmark  (the  environmental  performance  of  the  average 
product  sold  on  the  EU  market).  Some  of  the  information  in 
PEFCRs  may  require  a  certain  amount  of  product-specific  & 
environmental  expertise  to  fully  understand  and  link  to  an 
environmental claim. A PEF Study, whether based on the PEF or 
based on a PEFCR, considers duration/life time of the product. 
Under  the  use-stage  processes,  repair  and maintenance  of  the 
product are covered. Current PEFCRs were developed during a 
pilot  phase,  where  the  interest  of  volunteering  industry  was 
determining the scope of the document. This resulted in some 
PEFCRs  that  have  a  good  coverage  of  a  product  category  (e.g. 
dairy,  beer)  and  a  limited  scope  to  others  (e.g.  the  washing 
machine detergent PEF only covers liquid heavy-duty detergent; 
laptops  only  cover  storage;  pasta  only  covers  wheat  pasta).). 
There  is  a  risk  that  consumers  would  not  understand  which 
products are covered by this information and can be compared 
to a benchmark. In case a company communicates information 
based on the PEF study to external  parties, they have to make 
available the full PEF study and they have to carry out a 3r party 
verification.  

Horizontal 
Overall 
method 
applicable 
to any 
product 
category. 
19 
product-
specific 
calculatio
n rules 
were 
developed
. 16 
environm
ental 
impacts 
are 
covered.  

/ 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision of information 

Durability  Reparability 

Environmental 
characteristics 

Obsolescence  Greenwashing 

Sustainable 
labels & 
logos 

Product 
scope 

Gaps 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

information 
The  Directive  does  not  provide 
It 
obligations  or  for  substantive  consumer  rights. 
improves the protection of collective consumer interests, 
thus strengthening enforcement of consumer rights.  

for 

/ 

Horizontal 

/ 

Horizontal 

The CPC Regulation aims to improve enforcement of EU 
consumer protection legislation. It establishes a network 
of national competent authorities of EEA countries (CPC 
Network)  to  address  cross  border  infringements  of  EU 
consumer rules, and sets rules for cooperation between 
Member States.  

EU 
law/initiative 
Directive 
(EU) 
2020/1828  on 
representative 
actions  for  the 
protection  of 
collective 
interests 
consumers 
(repealing 
Directive 
2009/22/EC) 

of 

Consumer 
Protection 
Cooperation 
Regulation 
2017/2394  

Part 2 

216 This Recommendation  was  updated in December 2021 via Recommendation  C(2021) 9332 final available at  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/publications/recommendation-use-

environmental-footprint-methods_en 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The table below presents the interaction between this initiative and other EU initiatives that are currently under preparation. 

Title 

Brief description  

Green 
Initiative 

Claims 

The Green Claims initiative was announced by the 
European  Green  Deal,  the  Circular  Economy 
Action Plan217 and the New Consumer Agenda218. 
It  aims  to  ensure  that  environmental  claims  are 
substantiated  based  on  reliable,  comparable  and 
verifiable information. The initiative would apply 
horizontally to voluntary claims related to products 
(goods and services, including food and non-food), 
and  organisations,  in  a  business-to-consumer  and 
business-to-business  context.  It  does  not  cover 
social sustainability. 

Interaction  with  initiative  on  Empowering  Consumers  for  the  Green 
Transition 
The interaction between the initiatives is focused on business-to-consumer (B2C) claims 
(Green Claims Initiative aims to cover both B2B and B2C claims), and to measures that 
aim to fight greenwashing. On these areas, initiative on Empowering consumers for the 
green transition will act as a B2C lex generalis, a safety net for other EU-level technical or 
sector-specific instruments providing more detailed rules (lex specialis) for environmental 
claims. The Green Claims Initiative is such a lex specialis technical instrument. More 
specifically, this will mean that a green claim will need to be substantiated based on 
requirements of the Green Claims Initiative.  

The policy options under examination in the context of the Green Claims Initiative interact 
with this initiative in the following areas: 

the  substantiation  and 

-  Certain policy options considered under the Green Claims Initiative would make it 
mandatory  for  companies  to  observe  certain  methodological  requirements 
regarding 
their  voluntary 
environmental  claims.  For  claims  related  to  specific  environmental  impacts,  life 
cycle or overall environmental performance, they would need to substantiate them 
via a PEF or OEF report (based on a PEFCRs or OEFSRs, where they exist, and 
based on the PEF or OEF method219, where no PEFCR/OEFSR is available) and 
respect  requirements  on  minimum  information  content  in  their  communication. 

the  communication  of 

217    COM(2020)98 final. 

218    COM(2020)696 final.  

219    https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/  

167 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The initiative would gradually introduce methodological requirements for a wider 
range of priority claims. Companies would remain free to decide if they make an 
environmental claim. 

  The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition initiative will introduce a 
ban on generic statements on the environmental performance of products (generic 
environmental  claims  such  as  “good  for  the  environment”,  “environmentally 
friendly”  “friend  of  nature”,  “green”  would  be  forbidden  unless  the  excellent 
environmental  performance  of  the  product  can  be  demonstrated  either    by 
compliance  with  the  EU  Ecolabel  regulation;  officially  recognised  ecolabelling 
schemes  in  the  Member  States  (in  accordance  with  Article  11  of  EU  Ecolabel 
regulation); or by compliance with top environmental performance in accordance 
with  applicable  EU  laws,  i.e.  the  green  claims  or  any  other  specific  EU  law 
applicable  for certain sectors (e.g. linked to future SPI instrument or green finance 
etc.). 

By laying down more specific product requirements , the SPI will be able to elaborate on 
and further complement the measures foreseen in the initiative on Empowering Consumers 
for  the  Green  Transition,  in  particular  in  relation  to  the  reparability  and  durability  of 
products:  

  For durability, the SPI may  e.g. set requirements on what the minimum life 
duration of a specific product (or its components) should be or how long its 
spare parts should be kept available after purchase to facilitate its repair. In 
addition, the SPI could set information requirements on the expected durability 
of  specific  products.  Therefore,  the  Empowering  Consumer  initiative’s 
horizontal  information  requirement  on  producer’s  commercial  guarantee  is 
fully complementary to SPI.  

  For  reparability,  the  SPI  could  set  design  requirements  to  improve  the 
reparability of specific products, e.g. on a product’s ease of dis-assembly. In 
addition, the SPI could set information requirements on reparability, possibly 
including a reparability scoring index. Future SPI measures may also specify 
how  this  information  should  be  communicated  in  relation  to  the  relevant 

168 

Sustainable 
Products Initiative 

the  market,  mainly 

The  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  (SPI)  will 
introduce sustainability requirements for products 
placed  on 
targeting 
manufacturers.  The  SPI  will  create  a  framework 
that allows setting both performance requirements 
and information requirements for specific product 
or groups of products. The initiative should expand 
the  scope  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  to  a  wider 
range  of  products,  and 
types  of 
requirements  to  better  cover  the  life  cycle  of 
products,  circularity  and  possibly  social  aspects. 
SPI  will  be  implemented  based  on  a  work 
programme  set  in  line  with  priority  criteria, 
establishing  requirements  as  relevant 
the 
products included in the work programme. The SPI 
also  aims  to  establish  a  digital  product  passport 
which would give access to such information along 

to  new 

to 

 
 
 
 
the  value  chain,  with  differentiated  access  to 
consumers, businesses and compliance authorities. 

product  or  product  group,  including  to  consumers.  Where  appropriate  and 
feasible, reparability information could also be required to be included in the 
Digital Product Passport. In so far as these communication rules are relevant 
to  sellers  as  defined  under  the  Empowering  Consumers  initiative,  the  SPI 
would function as a lex specialis and could provide more demanding or precise 
instructions where needed in relation to specific products or product groups. If 
not,  the  Empowering  Consumers  initiative  provides  default  rules  for  the 
seller’s  obligations  in  relation  to  reparability  information  required  by  SPI.        
Therefore,  the  Empowering  Consumer  initiative’s  horizontal  information 
requirement on reparability is fully complementary to SPI. 

In relation to misleading practices,  such as early obsolescence,  the SPI aims to introduce 
specific requirements (e.g. on durability and reparability) for products or groups of products, 
thus  complementing  the  Empowering  Consumers  initiative  which  will  facilitate  public 
enforcement in order to stop unfair practices and will allow the harmed consumers to claim 
individual remedies where such practices are deemed unfair under consumer law 

For  example,  under  the  Empowering  Consumers  for  the  Green  Transition  initiative,  the 
producer of a coffee machine would have to inform consumers about any feature of a good 
introduced to limit its durability. The SPI could complement this by establishing specific 
minimum requirements, for instance, on the durability, reparability, recyclability, recycled 
content and energy efficiency of all coffee machines. 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS – DETAILED ASSESSMENT 

This  annex  presents  in  a  detailed  way  the  impacts  of  the  various  policy  options  and 
complements  Section  6  above.  The  impacts  and  sub-impacts  against  which  the  policy 
options are assessed have been selected in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines and 
guided  by  the  problem  tree.  The  assessment  is  predominantly  qualitative  and 
complemented, when and where possible, by a quantitative assessment, which relies on 
estimates  gathered  from  the  literature  review,  stakeholder  consultation  and  modelling 
work.  The  process  for  selecting  the  impacts  and  the  methodology  underpinning  the 
quantitative assessment is explained in Annex 4. The monetised costs and benefits of each 
measure considered in the assessment are incremental to those of the baseline, which is 
therefore  assigned  EUR  0  for  these  impact  categories  (as  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the 
baseline against the baseline is obviously zero). As regards the qualitative assessment, each 
policy option is given a mark on a scale from 0 to 10 per sub-criteria, with 5 being given 
to the baseline. When the option leads to an improvement of the situation compared to the 
baseline, a grade above 5 is given, commensurate to the qualitatively estimated impact. 
Similarly, if the option deteriorates the situation compared to the baseline, it receives a 
grade below 5, commensurate to the impact. 

1. 

Problem 1: Consumers lack  reliable  information  at the point of sale to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices 

1.1. 

Sub-Problem  1.2:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  products’ 
lifespan 

Assessment of the options 

Option 1.2.A: EU-level obligation  to inform consumers of the expected lifespan of 
products 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: Consumers are interested in having information about the 
lifespan/durability of products and are even willing to pay for it. However, option 1.2.A 
will  not  improve  the  quality  of  decision-making  for  consumers.  This  is  because  the 
reliability of the information provided under this option (and the comparability it would 
allow between products) will depend on the methodology used by companies to assess 
such  an  expected  lifetime.  These  methodologies  are  likely  to  vary  depending  on  the 
companies, therefore leading to diverging assessments within a given product category. 
Several stakeholders have highlighted this challenge as a significant limitation of this 
option.  It  may  only  partly  be  solved  by  future  Eco-design  requirements  when  these 
become available for certain product categories. (4/10) 
Consumer protection:  In principle, the option ensures consumers receive information 
that  helps  them  avoid  products  with  low  lifespans.  However,  the  expected  lifespan 
information could also result in unjustified consumer expectations as it could give the 
wrong  impression  of  creating  individual  rights  equivalent  to  commercial  guarantees. 
While consumer claims for remedies under EU consumer law220 could be possible in 

220  The Better enforcement and modernisation Directive (EU) 2019/2161 amended the Unfair Commercial Practices 
Directive  2005/29/EC,  requiring  Member  States  to  ensure  that  consumers  can  seek  individual  redress  for  unfair 
commercial  practices  as  of  May  2022.  Unfounded  statements  of  expected  durability  could  be  eventually  found 
misleading under the UCPD where the deceptive nature of the statement and its negative impact on the integrity of the 

170 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
specific situations of ‘misleading’ durability statements, (many) consumers will not be 
able to obtain redress where their products fail earlier than expected and this could result 
in  consumer  confusion.  This  limitation  was  highlighted  by  experts,  consumer 
organisations and NGOs. (5/10) 
Consumer  trust:  Receiving  this  information  is  likely  to  create  expectations  among 
consumers  that  they  would  easily  obtain  remedies  in  case  a  product  fails  before  the 
indicated  lifespan.  Since  such  remedies  are  not  straightforward  here,  consumers  who 
experience this type of situation will feel misled and their trust in the market is expected 
to be reduced. On the other hand, this information might give reassurance to consumers 
regarding the durability of products in the market. (4/10)   
Monetisable Consumer welfare:  
Depending  on  the  level  of  effectiveness  of  the  option  in  contributing  to  consumers 
purchasing alternatives that last one year longer than in the baseline (under our scenario), 
the monetisable consumer welfare is therefore estimated to be around EUR 300 - 500 
(present value for period 2025-2040) if the information is reliable. It could, however, 
become negative if each company decides on its methodology221. The reason behind a 
possible negative impact is that since each company can decide its own methodology, 
some consumers may believe (and even pay a premium) based on the indicated lifespan 
that  they  are  buying  products  that  last  longer  than  the  ones  they  were  buying  in  the 
baseline when in fact they are not. (6/10) 

Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing  field:  The  option  will  penalise  (via  reduction  of  demand)  companies 
producing products with shorter lifespans than could be expected and that freeride on 
consumer expectations based on the lifespan of their competitors’ products. The impact 
on the level-playing field is, however, dependent on the reliability of the assessment of 
lifespan by companies and effective enforcement. (4/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: The option is not expected to have an 
impact on reducing the barrier to cross-border trade. (5/10)  
Administrative burdens:  This  option will have significant  administrative burden on 
businesses, related to the production of new data to be able to provide information on 

transactional decision (to buy the specific good) can be established. Showing the deceptive nature of the statement will 
require proving that the estimate was wrong, that the trader did not assess it properly etc. Furthermore, the statement 
about expected durability could also constitute a “public statement” pursuant to Article 7(1)(d) Sale of Goods Directive 
(objective conformity criterion). Accordingly, it could also establish reasonable consumer expectations and might lead 
to potential remedies against the seller for non-conformity, although only within the legal guarantee period. For example: 
In  a  situation  where  a  product’s  expected  durability  is  indicated  as  5  years  and  later  it  turns  out  that  the  average 
durability of that product is only 4 years, a consumer who has bought such a product less than 2 years ago (i.e. the EU 
wide minimum legal guarantee period; in some Member States longer period applies) could be entitled to remedies for 
non-conformity, although only within the legal guarantee depending on the circumstances of the particular case to be 
decided  ultimately  by  a  court  .  This  means  that  even  though  such  a  declaration  does  not  constitute  a  “commercial 
guarantee” (see Option 1.2.B), it cannot be excluded that it may still lead to remedies against the seller based on the 
Sale of Goods Directive. 
221 The impact of the option was assessed for large household appliances, small household appliances and IT and other 
electronic goods. This assessment has limitations in particular because it relies on extrapolation of anecdotal data for 
consumer behaviour and for the lifespan of products available on the market and it only considers gains for one additional 
year of lifespan while in reality the measure will help consumers choose products with lifespans that might be two or 
more years higher than the products they would have bought in the baseline scenario.  

171 

 
 
 
                                                           
the expected lifespan of products222 and, to a lesser extent, the tagging of the product223. 
Business  organisations  have  pointed  to  the  high  cost  of  this  obligation.  While  the 
obligation is on the seller, it is assumed that sellers will request this information from 
manufacturers. These extra costs are estimated between EUR 2 435 - 2 680 million for 
the period 2025-2040 (present value). This, however, depends on various assumptions, 
including whether manufacturers are already producing this data in a business-as-usual 
scenario. Another cost relates to the tagging of the good.  
Substantive compliance costs: As this measure imposes an information obligation, the 
costs  identified  are  categorised  as  administrative  burden  and  no  relevant  substantive 
compliance costs were identified. 
Indirect costs: The total costs of the option divided by the volume of projected sales is 
estimated to be on average EUR 0.10 for all products. While such extra costs might be 
passed on the consumers, it is not expected to have an effect on the demand given the 
limited  impact  on  the  average  price  of  the  products  affected  by  the  option.  Some 
companies  might  need  to  improve  the  quality  of  their  products  in  order  to  remain 
competitive and thus incur costs. These costs are, however, expected to be compensated 
by an increase in the demand for these products. (5/10) 
SME growth: This option will have a higher relative impact on SME manufacturers but 
its costs are not expected to have a significant negative impact on SME growth as such 
as SMEs are more likely to be sub-contractors but less so the final manufacturers who 
would have to carry out the assessment. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement  costs  are  estimated  to  be  of  EUR  86-97  million  for  the  period  2025-
2040224. These costs will be generated by the time and expertise needed to check the 
information  provided  by  businesses  (monitoring,  inspections,  complaint  handling), 
which will be particularly challenging and time-consuming in the absence of common 
standards/methodology.  

Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: Due to the limitation of the option mentioned above, consumers are 
unlikely  to  purchase  products  that  effective  last  longer  and  so  the  impact  on  CO2 
emissions is considered negligible.  
Other  environmental  impacts  change.  For  the  same  reason  as  above  the  option  is 
expected to have negligible effects on other environmental impacts. (5/10) 

Coherence: The option does not state which methodology should be used to assess the 
expected lifespan. This space can therefore be filled by future Eco-design (and planned 
SPI) requirements. The (future) provisions under the Sale of Goods Directive and the 
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive would allow for individual consumer remedies 
(e.g. compensation for damage suffered by the consumer; or a price reduction or the 

222 Data obtained for the costs of the tests varied significantly and so we incorporated this in the cost model by assuming 
that these costs follow a triangular distribution. Another challenge to assess these costs was to estimate how many models 
exist per product category. The sources used were the Impact Assessments of the eco-design regulations complemented 
by a desk research of the offer of main online retailers in different EU countries. 
223 It is assumed that in 97.5% of the cases this will be done by the manufacturer on the package and that in 2.5% of the 
cases stickers will have to be placed on the product package by sellers. Data on how much time it takes to place the 
stickers was obtained from the Impact Assessments for the proposal of Ecodesign regulations (5 minutes per sticker).  
224 Estimated based on the creation of a team of 5 experts per MS (25% of their time would be dedicated to monitoring 
the compliance with the measure, 50% would be to carry out inspections and 25% with handling complaints), 140 hours 
of familiarization with the measures and adjust the internal procedures and a yearly enforcement action amounting to 
EUR 40 000.  

172 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
termination of the contract) in case of unfounded statement on the expected durability. 
This  could  actually  result  –  even  in  absence  of  harmonised  methodology  under  Eco-
design or SPI - in prudent/realistic estimations from sellers/traders on expected lifespan.  
(6/10) 
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption:  The  option will help  increase awareness 
among consumers of products’ durability (at the time of purchase) and reduce, to some 
extent,  the  frequency  of  replacement  of  products.  This  contributes  to  a  reduction  of 
waste, and to a more circular and sustainable economy. (5/10)   
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: No improvement expected since 
the  option  relies  on  an  assessment  carried  out  by  businesses  according  to  the 
methodology of their choice, and thus more difficult to verify for enforcers. Half of the 
authorities surveyed pointed to difficulties in monitoring this obligation. (5/10) 

Option  1.2.B:  Obligation  to  inform  consumers  of  the  existence  (or  absence)  of  a 
producer’s commercial guarantee for durability  
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: This option would also give consumers information that 
they want to receive and for which they would be willing to pay. Commercial guarantees 
are used by companies to signal that their products are of high-quality and that they are 
expected to last long. The provision of information about the existence and length of 
commercial guarantees could thus serve as an excellent proxy to indicate which products 
are expected to have a longer lifespan. Simulations carried out for the purposes of this 
Impact Assessment show that, in the medium term, the share of products covered by 
commercial guarantees and the duration of the commercial guarantees will increase as a 
result  of  the  option.  These  results  are  in  line  with  the  expectations  voiced  by  some 
consumer associations and NGOs consulted. To avoid information overload (highlighted 
by national authorities as a risk), attention will have to be paid to the way information is 
provided to avoid confusion among consumers between the period covered by the legal 
guarantee  and  the  additional  period  covered  by  a  commercial  guarantee.  The 
comparability of the provided information across products, and the reliability of such 
information, are expected to be very high. (7/10) 
Consumer protection:  Consumers will be able  to  more easily identify and purchase 
products covered by commercial guarantees and thus be better protected from problems 
that occur during the period of the commercial guarantee, once the legal guarantee has 
elapsed. It will also contribute to protecting consumers that are currently unaware of the 
period covered by a legal guarantee. (7/10) 
Consumer trust: This option will increase the trust of consumers in the market, first by 
increasing consumer awareness of the existence of legal and commercial guarantees and 
their  duration  and,  second,  by  reassuring  consumers  of  the  quality  and  durability  of 
products covered by commercial guarantees. (7/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: The option is estimated to bring an increase to the 
monetisable  consumer  welfare  of  approximately  EUR  1  775  –  2 465  million  for  the 
period 2025-2040 (present  value). The extent of  the impact  is  dependent  on how the 
market will adjust to the measure in the long terms and consequently on how the offer 
(number and duration) of commercial guarantees will evolve. The approach used was to 

173 

 
 
 
 
calculate the surplus of those consumers that end up buying products225 that are covered 
by a commercial guarantee226 as a result of the options (consequently, at the baseline 
they would have not purchased a product covered by a commercial guarantee). (7/10) 

Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The option will systematically increase transparency regarding the 
commercial  guarantee  offered  for  goods  and  penalise  companies  that  do  not  offer  or 
offer  less  attractive  commercial  guarantees  (through  a  reduction  of  demand).  If 
companies are producing products with shorter lifespans or lower quality then it could 
be reasonably expected that the sellers will most likely not offer commercial guarantees 
for these products, so the option will contribute to a level playing field. (6/10) 
Reduction  of  barriers  to  cross-border  trade:  Evidence  indicates  that  without  EU 
action, Member States will start addressing this sub-problem independently and in a non-
harmonised way. It can therefore be expected that a harmonised approach at EU level to 
address this sub-problem will have a positive impact on business confidence and cross-
border transactions. (6/10) 
Administrative burdens: This option will impose relatively high one-off administrative 
burdens on businesses, primarily sellers, mostly related to adapting systems, procedures 
and existing data (e.g. updating websites) and to replacing price tags in offline shops 
(e.g.  on  shelves).  However,  it  will  have  low  recurrent  administrative  burdens  as  the 
activities necessary to provide the information would have been carried out in business-
as-usual scenario. These extra costs are estimated to be approximately EUR 890 – 1 065 
million for the period 2025-2040 (present value). The costs fall largely on sellers as they 
are mainly linked to the display of the required information.  
Substantive compliance costs: None have been identified. (5/10) 
Indirect costs: The total costs of the option divided by the volume of product sales is 
around EUR 0.04. While such extra costs might be passed on the consumers, it is not 
expected to have an effect on the demand. It is also not expected to lead to a significant 
increase  of  the  operational  costs  of  companies,  as  they  are  aware  of  the  quality  and 
lifespan  of  their  products  and  will  select  the  optimal  duration  for  the  commercial 
guarantee and optimum price premium accordingly, depending also on the needs of the 
consumers in a given market or a given product category. These costs are expected to be 
compensated by an increase in the price of products (as consumers are willing to pay for 
longer commercial guarantees) and possibly by an increase in demand for those same 
products. (5/10) 
SME growth: No significant impact. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement  costs  are  estimated  to  be  of  EUR  15-27  million  for  the  period  2025-
2040227. These costs will be generated by the time and expertise needed to check the 
information provided by businesses. Based on interviews with national authorities in the 
context  of  the  supporting  study  the  option  would  not  require  significant  additional 
resources on top of the existing ones to enforce CRD and SGD. 

225  The  estimation  took  into  account  the  willingness  to  pay  for  a  product  covered  by  one  year  longer  than  the  legal 
guarantee. 
226 Which means a gross gain of the willingness to pay, and a net gain equal to the gross gain minus the price premium 
they paid to purchase a product with a commercial guarantee of one year. The average price premium considered was 
based on the results of the mystery shopping and of the DG study on Legal and commercial guarantees available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/legal-guarantees-final-report_en.pdf  
227 Based on 1 staff per Member State, 70 hours of familiarisation with the measure and a yearly action amounting to 
EUR 40 000.   

174 

 
 
 
                                                           
Environmental impacts: 

Climate  change:  Due  to  the  implementation  of  the  option,  (some)  consumers  will 
purchase products that last longer, therefore leading to a reduction of produced units. 
This will lead to a reduction of CO2 emissions estimated at 0.3 – 0.4 mega tons (present 
value of EUR 6 - 8 million) during production (estimate based on products lasting at 
least 1 year longer) for the period 2025-2040. 
Other environmental impacts change: In addition, it will lead to less water used, fewer 
particulate matter and polluting agents released and a reduction of the amount of waste, 
and will support the transition towards a more circular and sustainable economy. (6/10) 
Coherence: The option is coherent will the legal framework and usefully completes the 
provisions  set  out  in  the  Sales  and  Guarantees  Directive  and  the  Consumer  Rights 
Directive as it will ensure clearer information to consumers at the point of sale on the 
length  of  the  producer’s  commercial  guarantees  of  durability  for  all  goods  in  scope. 
(9/10) 
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity  and  sustainable  consumption:  The  option  will,  to  some  extent,  help 
increase  the  awareness  among  consumers  of  products’  durability  (at  the  time  of 
purchase) and reduce, to some extent, the frequency of replacement of products. This 
contributes to waste reduction and a more circular and sustainable economy. (6/10)  
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: The option is easily enforceable. 
It will also ensure a better and coherent application of the EU legal consumer framework 
(in particular the SGD) as it specifies that information on the existence or absence of a 
producer’s commercial guarantee of durability should be provided to consumers. (7/10) 

Option 1.2.C: Obligation to inform  consumers of the existence  (or absence) of a 
producer’s commercial guarantee for durability and on the period of time during 
which free software updates will be provided by manufacturers 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: Evidence from literature and from the consumer survey 
and stakeholder consultations show that consumers are interested in purchasing products 
with better software updates. This need has to some extent been addressed by Directive 
(EU) 2019/771 which requires sellers to ensure that software updates are provided for a 
period of time that a consumer may reasonably expect (where the sales contract provides 
for a single act of supply of the digital element). However, it does not specify the exact 
period of time nor how this should be communicated to the consumers at the point of 
sale. The option (in addition to the impacts described for option 1.2.B) would allow 
consumers to identify which products offer better conditions in terms of availability of 
software updates and therefore improve their decision-making process.  In addition, it 
could  have the additional  benefit of quantifying  what  “reasonable expectation” could 
mean (as some stakeholders pointed out that there would be advantages in qualifying 
“reasonable  expectations”  for  consumers  and  for  enforcement).  To  address  possible 
information overload, this information on software updates should be only provided in 
absence of a commercial guarantee of durability (which will cover software updates), 
unless the software updates are provided for a longer time than the commercial guarantee 
of durability. (8/10) 
Consumer  protection:  In  addition  to  the  positive  impacts  described  for  option 
1.2.B, the option would also have a positive impact on the protection of consumers as it 
is expected to qualify to some extent what manufacturers consider to be a “reasonably 

175 

 
 
 
 
expected” period under the Sale of Goods Directive. Furthermore, manufacturers might 
decide  to  provide  software  updates  for  a  longer  period  than  the  “period  reasonably 
expected”  for  the  sellers  in  the  Sale  of  Goods  Directive  and  so  consumers  would  be 
protected for a longer period due to the option. (8/10) 
Consumer trust: The option would have a positive impact in addition, to the positive 
impacts described for option 1.2.B, primarily because it increases transparency on the 
length of the period during which software updates will be available. (8/10) 
Monetisable  Consumer  welfare:  Evidence  shows  that  some  consumers  give  up 
repairing a broken product because of a lack of updates. Data from the consumer survey 
indicates that this is the case in about 6%, 10% and 9% of repair attempts of laptops, 
TVs and smartphones, respectively. The option may contribute to ensuring consumers 
are better informed and select products with software updates ensured for longer periods 
(when compared to the baseline) and to some extent ensure that some of the failed repair 
attempts  (due  to  lack  of  software  updates)  will,  in  fact,  succeed.  In  these  cases, 
consumers will experience a “gain”, which according to the partial calculations carried 
out by the supporting study is likely to be around EUR 2 355 – 3 555 million  for the 
period 2025-2040 (net present value). (8/10) 

Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The option is expected to have some positive impact on a level-
playing field on top of those described for option 1.2.B as it will increase transparency 
about  commitments  regarding  software  update  and  allow  consumers  to  compare 
products based on these commitments. (7/10) 
Reduction of barriers  to cross-border trade:  The option is  expected to  have some 
impact on barriers to cross-border trade, as it is expected that some Member States will 
independently legislate on this if no EU level legislation is in place. (6/10) 
Administrative burdens: The option will have costs to manufacturers as they need to 
decide on the period during which they will provide software updates, and communicate 
them  to  sellers.  Sellers  will  then  have  costs  to  ensure  that  consumers  receive  this 
information at the point of sale, however, digital means are allowed. These extra costs 
are estimated to be between EUR 990 – 1 170 million (of which the great majority for 
SMEs) for the period 2025-2040 (present value).  
Substantive compliance costs: None have been identified. (5/10) 
Indirect costs: The total costs of the option divided by the volume of product sales is 
around EUR 0.04. As explained previously, it is not expected to have an effect on the 
demand given the average price of the products affected by the option. (5/10) 
SME growth: Same as with option 1.2.B. (5/10) 

Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs: These costs are expected to be the same as for option 1.2.B. 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: In addition to the impacts of option 1.2.B, due to the implementation 
of the option, (some) consumers will be able to repair some goods that would have been 
replaced if the software had not been available. Consequently, the repaired products will 
have  a  longer  lifespan  than  they  would  have  had  in  the  baseline.  This  will  lead  to  a 
reduction of produced units and thus of CO2e emissions estimated to be around 0.4 – 
0.7 mega tons (present value of EUR 8 - 13 million) during production (estimate under 
a scenario based on products lasting at least 1 year longer) for the period 2025-2040. 
Other environmental impacts change. Same as for option 1.2.B. (6/10) 

176 

 
 
 
 
Coherence:  In  addition  to  the  impacts  of  option  1.2.B,  this  option  would    ensure 
further coherence with SGD, as it would stipulate  the number of years during which 
manufacturers  commit  to  providing  updates,  without  prejudice  to  the  statutory  SGD 
right on software updates if the ‘reasonably expected period’ for updates turns out to be 
longer. The seller would be required to pass on the manufacturer’s information. This 
would make the statutory SGD right more tangible and meaningful –i.e. the consumer 
will know that at least for the indicated period he is entitled to software updates. (9/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: In addition to the impacts described for 
option  1.2.B,  the  option  will  help  to  slightly  increase  the  share  of  products  that  are 
repaired instead of replaced.  (6/10)  
Application  of  the  EU legal  consumer  framework:  In  addition  to  the  impacts  of 
option  1.2.B,  the  option  is  expected  to  strengthen  the  application  of  the  relevant 
provision in the SGD. (7/10) 

Recap of the assessment of the options 

1.  Criteria and sub-criteria 

Option 1.2.A 
Information 
on expected 
lifespan 

Option 1.2.B 
Information 
on 
guaranteed 
lifespan 

Impact 
consumers 

on 

Impact 
businesses 

on 

of 

Quality 
consumer 
decision-making 
Consumer 
protection 
Consumer trust 

Monetisable 
consumer 
welfare 
(present 
value 
for  period  2025-
2040) 
Level-playing 
field  

4/10 

5/10 

4/10 

7/10 

7/10 

7/10 

6/10 
(EUR 850 - 1 
110 million) 

7/10 
(EUR 1775 – 
2 465 
million) 

Option 1.2.C = 
1.2.B + 
Obligation to 
inform 
consumers on 
the period of 
time during 
which free 
software 
updates will 
be provided 
by 
manufacturers 
8/10 

8/10 

8/10 

8/10 
(EUR 2 355– 3 
555 million) 

4/10 

6/10 

7/10 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
Reduction 
of 
barriers to  cross-
border trade 
Administrative 
burdens  (present 
value  for  period 
2025-2040) 
Substantive 
compliance costs 
value 
(present 
for  period  2025-
2040) 
Indirect costs 

SME growth 

Enforcement 
costs  and  other 
costs 
(present 
value  for  period 
2025-2040) 
Climate  change 
(present 
value 
for  period  2025-
2040) 
Other 
environmental 
impacts 
Coherence  with 
other 
EU 
legislation 
Circularity  and 
sustainable 
consumption 
Application 
the  EU 
framework 

of 
legal 

5/10 

6/10 

6/10 

EUR 2 435 – 
2 680 million 

EUR 890 – 1 
065 million 

EUR 990 – 1 
170 million  

 0 

0 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

0 

5/10 

5/10  

EUR 86-97 
million 

EUR 15-27 
million 

EUR 15-27 
million 

Negligible 

EUR 6 - 8 
million 

EUR 8 – 13 
million 

5/10 

6/10 

6/10 

6/10 

9/10 

9/10 

5/10 

6/10 

6/10 

5/10 

7/10 

7/10 

on 

Impacts 
public 
administration 

Environmental 
impacts 

Coherence 

Overarching 
impacts 

1.2. 

Sub-Problem  1.3:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  products’ 
reparability 

Assessment of the options 

Option 1.3.A: Provision of updated, user-friendly repair and maintenance manuals 
to consumers 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: No major impact expected as the information provided by 
the manual will come handy mainly during the use of the product but not necessarily at 
the  point  of  sale;  certain  consumers  will  still  look  at  it,  of  course,  and  thus  it  will 
contribute  to  informed  purchasing  decisions.  The  decision  to  allow  digital  means  to 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provide the information was taken to reduce potential “information overload”, but it does 
have a slight negative impact on the visibility and accessibility of the information.  (5/10) 
Consumer protection:  This  option contributes  to ensuring  good maintenance during 
the  use  phase  which  will  contribute  to  extending  the  useful  lifetime  of  the  product. 
Moreover, it will support self-repair and also protect consumers from problems faced 
when trying to independently carry out repairs without having the necessary instructions 
to do so. It can also prevent consumers from carrying out unsafe repairs (by non-certified 
people),  by  warning  them  what  repairs  may  be  done  by  themselves  and  which  ones 
should be left to professional repair services. (6/10) 
Consumer trust: This option will slightly increase the trust of consumers in the market 
and  removes  some  barriers  to  self-repair  and  independent  repair,  giving  a  sense  of 
empowerment to consumers. This potential benefit was mentioned by a few stakeholders 
(two NGOs and one consumer association) in the stakeholder interviews. (6/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: About 3.5% of consumers attempt to repair a broken 
product and give up because of a lack of repair manuals or information on how to carry 
out the repair. By providing consumers with repair manual, some of these 3.5% failed 
repair attempts will, in fact, succeed and consumers will experience a “gain” equal to 
the value of the additional lifespan gained as a result of the repair, which is estimated to 
amount to EUR 435 – 760 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value). Moreover, 
consumers may also benefit from better services from independent repairers who have 
now also better access to repair manuals. (7/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: No impact expected. (5/10) 
Reduction of barriers  to cross-border trade:  The option is  expected to  have some 
impact on barriers to cross-border trade, as in the future it is expected that some Member 
States  will  independently  legislate  on  this  if  no  EU  level  legislation  is  in  place.  A 
harmonised  approach  prevents  the  need  for  companies  to  comply  with  different 
standards (which will lead to a multiplication of costs). (6/10) 
Administrative burdens: Manufacturers will have to produce repair manuals for each 
model. Based on data collected through interviews we estimate the minimum cost  of 
producing a repair manual (for users) to be between EUR 4 000 and 6 000. The costs of 
a digital solution to providing this information are significantly lower when compared 
to the paper solution. This is in line with the views collected from industry associations. 
The costs fall mainly on manufacturers, but  sellers will also be affected as having to 
ensure that consumers receive the repair manual (which could be also just providing a 
link to the website of the manufacturer for online shops; for offline shops also digital 
means are allowed or via the repair manual that is included in the packaging). In the case 
of a digital solution, these extra costs (present value) are estimated to be around between 
EUR 785 – 935 million in the period 2025-2040 (of which 20% for SMEs). In the case 
of a paper version, the extra costs are much higher. 
Substantive compliance costs: None have been identified. (EUR 0 ) 
Indirect costs: The total costs of the option divided by the volume of product sales is 
around EUR 0.04. As explained previously, it is not expected to have an effect on the 
demand given the average price of the products affected by the option. (5/10) 
SME growth: This option will have a higher relative impact on SME manufacturers 
since  their  volume  of  sales  per  model  is  likely  lower  than  those  of  the  large 
manufacturers.  Nevertheless,  the  costs  imposed  by  the  option  are  not  expected  to  be 
significant and therefore will not have a significant negative impact on SME growth. 
(5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

179 

 
 
Enforcement  costs  are  estimated  to  be  of  EUR  16-21  million  for  the  period  2025-
2040228 (present value).  The costs will be generated by the time needed to check the 
availability of manuals. Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed 
that the option would not require significant additional resources on top of the existing 
ones to enforce CRD and SGD.  
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: Due to the implementation of the option, consumers will be able to 
maintain  their  goods  in  a  proper  way  and  repair  some  goods  that  would  have  been 
replaced in the absence of the manuals. Consequently, the (repaired) products will have 
a longer lifespan than they would have had in the baseline. This will lead to a reduction 
of produced units and thus of CO2 emissions estimated at 0.9 – 1.6 mega tons (present 
value  of  EUR  19  -  33  million)  during  production  (estimate  for  a  scenario  based  on 
products lasting at least 1 year longer) for the period 2025-2040. 
Other environmental impacts change. For the same reasons, it is expected that less 
water will be used and fewer particulate matters and polluting agents will be released. 
Longer-lasting products are also expected to reduce the amount of waste (7/10) 
Coherence: Fully coherent with existing or future Ecodesign/SPI requirements which 
may provide for specific product categories further details concerning what the specific 
‘repair and user manual’ should include (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The option will help increase the share of 
products that are repaired instead of replaced and also extend the useful lifetime of new 
products. This contributes to a reduction of waste, and to a more circular and sustainable 
economy.  However,  as  shown  above,  the  magnitude  of  the  impact  is  expected  to  be 
relatively small. (7/10)  
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: No impact. (5/10) 

Option 1.3.B: Provision of information about which spare parts are available and 
until when 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality  of  decision-making:  Consumers  are  interested  in  purchasing  products  with 
better availability of spare parts as this reassures them that finding spare parts is (and 
will remain) possible so that the product can be repaired in case of future failures. This 
option will thus help consumers identify which products offer better conditions in terms 
of availability of spare parts and therefore improve their decision-making process. The 
decision to allow digital means to provide this information was taken to reduce potential 
“information overload”, but it does have a small negative impact on the visibility and 
accessibility  of  the  information.  This  is  mitigated  by  ensuring  that  consumers  are 
informed of where the information is available. (6/10) 
Consumer protection: This option will help consumers to find the right spare parts for 
their defective products  and thus  contributes to  protecting consumers trying to  repair 
products as they can know if and which spare parts are available. It prevents them from 
buying or introducing the wrong spare parts  (6/10) 
Consumer trust: Same as option 1.3.A. (6/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: About 7%-12% of repair attempts by consumers are 
unsuccessful because of a lack of spare parts or information on how to obtain them. By 
providing  consumers  with  information  about  the  availability  of  spare  parts,  some  of 

228 Based on 1 extra staff per Member State, 70 hours of familiarization with the measure, and a yearly action estimated 
at EUR 20 000 per MS.  

180 

 
 
 
                                                           
these failed repair attempts will, in fact, succeed and consumers will experience a “gain” 
equal to the value of the additional lifespan gained as a result of the repair, which is 
estimated to amount to approximately EUR 1 220 – 2 970 million for the period 2025-
2040 (present value). Moreover, consumers may also benefit from better services from 
independent repairers who have now also better access to spare parts.  
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The option is expected to have a very slight positive impact as it 
will  increase  transparency  regarding  commitments  related  to  the  availability  of  spare 
parts and will allow consumers to compare products based on that. (5/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: Same as option 1.3.A. (6/10) 
Administrative  burdens:  Administrative  burdens  affect  manufacturers  having  to 
provide  the  necessary  information  to  sellers  (which  include  the  costs  of  identifying 
which spare parts will be available and for how long) as well as sellers having to ensure 
that  consumers  receive  this  information  (which  could  be  just  providing  a  link  to  the 
website of the manufacturer for online shops; for offline shops also digital means are 
allowed). These extra costs fall mainly on sellers and are estimated to be between EUR 
1 685 – 1 715 million in the period 2025-2040 (present value).  
Substantive compliance costs: None have been identified. (5/10) 
Indirect costs: The total costs of the option divided by the volume of product sales is 
around EUR 0.07. As explained previously, it is not expected to have an effect on the 
demand given the limited impact on the average price of the products affected by the 
option. (5/10) 
SME  growth:  Same  as  with  1.3.A.  However,  the  option  will  further  promote  the 
reparability of products and increase the demand for repair services, often provided by 
SMEs.  The magnitude of the impact is  not  expected to  be significantly  higher in  the 
period of analysis. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement  costs  are  estimated  to  be  of  EUR  16-21  Million  for  the  period  2025-
2040229 (present value), generated by the time needed to check whether the information 
is provided. Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed that the option 
would not require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce 
CRD and SGD. 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate  change:  Due  to  the  implementation  of  the  option,  (some)  consumers  and 
independent  repair  services  will  be  able  to  repair  some  goods  that  would  have  been 
replaced  in  the  absence  of  information  on  spare  parts.  Consequently,  the  repaired 
products will have a longer lifespan than they would have had in the baseline. This will 
lead to  a reduction  of produced units and thus  of CO2 emissions estimated 1.9  – 3.3 
mega tons (present value of EUR 39-68 million) during production (estimate under a 
scenario based on products lasting at least 1 year longer) for the period 2025-2040. 
Other  environmental  impacts  change.  Similar  to  option  1.3.A  but  with  a  slightly 
higher magnitude.  (6/10) 
Coherence: As it focuses on informing consumers on the availability of spare parts, the 
option is coherent and complements eco-design rules if and when they define whether 
spare parts should be available for a given product category. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

229 Based on 1 extra staff per Member State, 70 hours of familiarization with the measure, and a yearly action estimated 
at EUR 20 000 per MS. 

181 

 
 
                                                           
Circularity and sustainable consumption:  Same as with option 1.3.A, although the 
magnitude of impact is slightly higher. (7/10)  
Application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer  framework:  No  impact  but  the  option  was 
considered difficult to enforce by some authorities. (5/10) 

Option 1.3.C: Information about availability of repair services 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: While the option might help consumers select products 
that  appear  to  have  better  availability  of  repair  services  at  the  moment  of  purchase, 
problems  related  to  the  capacity  of  sellers  to  provide  comprehensive  and  complete 
information regarding repair services not specifically recommended by brands, might 
potentially  contribute  to  worsening  the  decision-making  of  consumers  as  well  as 
reducing their trust. Furthermore, the option will have less impact on consumers who do 
not live near the place where the product was purchased. Although producers will be 
able to provide information on repair services in other regions and Member States with 
which  they  are  affiliated  or  associated,  sellers  will  be  less  likely  to  have  available 
information  on the existence of local  or independent  repair services in  other regions. 
National authorities pointed to this risk. (4/10) 
Consumer protection: No impact expected. (5/10) 
Consumer trust: The information provided by traders might be unintentionally biased 
(towards recommended repair services  as other  repair services  are more  difficult  and 
costly to identify) and incomplete (as it may not cover certain regions or Member States). 
Thus, the option might have a negative impact on consumer trust. (4/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: About 2%-5% of repair attempts by consumers are 
unsuccessful because of a lack of repair services or because consumers cannot find these 
services.  However,  the  lack  of  effectiveness  of  the  option  in  providing  complete 
information is expected to lead only to a minor increase of the consumer surplus, which 
is estimated to amount to between EUR 115 - 250 million in the period 2025-2040230 
(present value). 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The option is expected to have a small negative impact as a result 
of the limitations related to the comprehensiveness of the list of repair services provided 
by traders and the potential unintentional biases towards repair services recommended 
by brands. (4/10) 
Reduction  of  barriers  to  cross-border  trade:  The  option  might  have  a  possible 
negative  impact  on  the  cross-border  trade  as  sellers  from  one  Member  State  might 
experience  difficulties  in  identifying  repair  services  in  another  Member  State,  which 
might prevent them from selling product across borders. (3/10) 
Administrative burdens: This option involves the need to maintain an updated list of 
repair services and to ensure that consumers have access to that list. These costs are on 
the seller. These extra costs are estimated to  be between EUR 3 120  – 3 380 million 
(present value) for the period 2025-2040 (of which largely for SMEs).  

230 The quantification of benefits was done by adjusting the stated willingness to pay for information about the availability 
of repair services of products by the respondents to the consumer survey and multiplying it by the number of consumers 
in the EU. The question did not specify for what products the information would be available, so the value was adjusted 
based on the share that consumers spend on the three product categories considered in the analysis (large household 
appliances,  small  household  appliances  and  ICT  and  electronic  services).  Furthermore,  the  question  also  covered 
information on the period of time that repair services would be available. For this reason, we only considered 25% of the 
stated value 

182 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Substantive compliance costs: None have been identified 
Indirect costs: The total costs of the option divided by the volume of product sales is 
around EUR 0.13. As explained previously, it is not expected to have an effect on the 
demand given the average price of the products affected by the option. (5/10) 
SME growth: Similar to option 1.3.A. Furthermore, it might have also a negative impact 
on SME repair services that are not specifically recommended by manufacturers. (4/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 
Enforcement costs are estimated to be of EUR 8-13 million for the period 2025-2040231 
(present  value),  generated  by  the  time  needed  to  check  whether  the  information  is 
provided. Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed that the option 
would not require significant additional resources on top of the existing ones to enforce 
CRD and SGD. 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: Due to the implementation of the option, (some) consumers will be 
able  to  repair  some  goods  that  would  have  been  replaced  if  information  about  repair 
services had not been available. Consequently, the repaired products will have a longer 
lifespan  than  they  would  have  had  in  the  baseline.  This  will  lead  to  a  reduction  of 
produced units and thus of CO2 emissions estimated at between 0.04- 0.08 mega tons or 
EUR 1 – 2 million during production (present value estimate under a scenario based on 
products lasting at least 1 year longer) for the period 2025-2040. 
Other environmental impacts change. Same as option 1.3.A. (6/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The impact on the production is expected 
to be minor, as will be the effect of the measure on other environmental impacts and on 
the production of electric and electronic waste. (6/10)  
Application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer  framework:  the  option  will  be  difficult  to 
enforce as it will be time and resource consuming for authorities to assess whether the 
information provided by retailers is comprehensive and not biased. (4/10) 

Option 1.3.D: Reparability scoring Index 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: The option is expected to have a positive impact on the 
quality of consumer decisions, as a score allows to cover a wide range of reparability 
aspects effectively, without leading to information overload. It requires, however, that 
all manufacturers are implementing the JRC general methodology in exactly the same 
way to guarantee a reliable comparability between products (and in the absence of more 
product-specific methodology to be defined under Ecodesign/SPI) which would be very 
difficult in reality. This may lead to products being assessed differently within the same 
category,  which  could  impact  negatively  consumer  trust  in  the  index  and  prevent 
comparability. The cost of repair is not covered under the JRC methodology which is 
seen by stakeholders as an important condition for the repair of a product. (6/10) 
Consumer protection: No impact expected. (5/10) 
Consumer trust: The impact on consumer trust will be dependent on whether the index 
is  based  on  the  same  methodology  for  a  given  product  category.  However  as 

231 Based on 0.5 extra staff per Member State, 70 hours of familiarization with the measure, and a yearly action estimated 
at EUR 20 000 per MS. 

183 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
manufacturers  would  apply  a  general  methodology,  it  is  likely  to  lead  to  variations, 
which could affect consumer trust. (4/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: A repair score will allow consumers to select products 
that are easier to repair. However, it might not provide actionable information that will 
help consumers to repair the products (e.g., which spare parts are available, where spare 
parts can be obtained; what is the cost of repair, how quickly can the repair be done by 
the repair service etc.).  This  reduces, to  some extent, the effectiveness  of the option. 
Nevertheless,  this  option  is  expected  to  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  consumer  surplus, 
which is estimated to amount to between EUR 455 – 995 million in the period 2025-
2040 (present value). (7/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The option is expected to have a minor positive impact on the level 
playing field, as consumers will be able to compare products based on their reparability. 
However, this impact is largely dependent on whether the index is based on a common 
methodology followed by all manufacturers. (5/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: The option might prevent future barriers 
to cross-border trade as one Member State has already developed a reparability score for 
certain product categories, and other Member States might each adopt their own score 
system.  This  lack  of  harmonisation  (that  the  option  would  prevent)  would  require 
companies  wanting  to  trade  across  borders  to  assess  the  reparability  of  products 
according to different systems and to a duplication (or more) of costs. (7/10) 
Administrative burdens: The administrative burden of this option involves the need to 
assess the reparability of products and inform consumers of that assessment. Given the 
complexity of providing a repair score, it will require a substantial amount of resources 
from manufacturers, but even more on the seller as the information obligation falls on 
them. Sellers will be asked to provide this information at the point of sale, but this can 
be also done via digital means. These total extra costs are estimated to be between EUR 
4 180 – 4 360 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value). 
Substantive compliance costs: None have been identified.  
Indirect costs: The total costs of the option divided by the volume of product sales is 
around EUR 0.16. As explained previously, it is not expected to have an effect on the 
demand given the average price of the products affected by the option. (5/10) 
SME  growth:  Given  the  substantial  amount  of  resources  that  the  assessment  will 
require,  in  particular  in  view  of  the  absence  of  detailed  guidance/methodology  for  a 
specific  product  category,  it  is  expected  that  the  option  could  have  a  minor  negative 
impact on SME growth. (4/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs are estimated to be of EUR 32 - 37 million for the period 2025-2040 
(present  value),  generated  by  the  time  needed  to  check  whether  the  information  is 
provided and accurate 232. Based on interviews with some CPC authorities, it is assumed 
that the option would not require significant additional resources on top of the existing 
ones to enforce CRD and SGD. 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: Due to the implementation of the option, (some) consumers will opt 
for goods that can be more easily repaired. Consequently, the repaired products will have 
a longer lifespan than they would have had in the baseline. This will lead to a reduction 
of produced units and thus of CO2e emissions estimated at between 1.2 – 2.2 mega tons 

232 Based on 2 extra staff per Member State, 70 hours of familiarization with the measure, and a yearly action estimated 
at EUR 20 000 per MS. 

184 

 
 
                                                           
(present  value of EUR 52  - 78 million)  during production (estimate under a scenario 
based on products lasting at least 1 year longer) in the period 2025-2040. 
Other environmental impacts change. The impact on the production is estimated to 
be moderate, and so will be the effect of the option on other environmental impacts and 
on the production of electric and electronic waste. (7/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence with existing EU law identified. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The option will help to increase the share 
of products that are repaired instead of replaced. This contributes to a reduction of waste, 
and to a more circular and sustainable economy.  (7/10)  
Application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer  framework:  The  option  may  be  very 
challenging to enforce as authorities may not have the means and resources to verify the 
reliability of the repair score and the methodology used by companies (particularly for 
those cases where no product specific methodology exists). (4/10) 

Option  1.3.E:  Provision  of  Repair  Scoring  Index,  or  other  relevant  repair 
information on a where applicable or where available basis 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality  of  decision-making:  This  option  will  increase  the  quality  of  consumer 
decision-making as it will increase the likelihood that high quality information (i.e. a 
repair score when available, and other relevant repair information when no repair score 
is available) is provided to the consumer at the point of sale. (7/10) 
Consumer protection: The option combines the benefits of the repair information to be 
provided under options 1.3.A, 1.3.B, 1.3.C and 1.3.D, in that it will allow consumers to 
select products that are easier to repair when such repair information is available.  (6/10) 
Consumer trust: The option avoids the drawback of option 1.3.D which relies on all 
manufacturers implementing the JRC general repair score methodology in exactly the 
same way. This option, on the other hand, provides for the provision at the point of sale 
of  those  repair  scores  which  are  applicable  in  the  case  of  the  product  and  sector  in 
question. This is expected to have a positive impact on consumer trust. (6/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: The option has the benefit that the information will 
be able to be provided on a wider range of products, as options 1.3.A, 1.3.B, 1.3.C and 
1.3.D would provide repair information on a defined, hence more narrow, product scope 
(i.e. energy-using goods only), while manufacturers may be potentially interested/able 
to  provide repair information for other product  categories  as well. Also,  the fact  that 
manufacturers who provide repair information on their products can be certain that such 
information  will  be  presented  to  consumers  at  the  point  of  sale  will  mean  that 
manufacturers will be incentivised to compete to provide the best repair conditions on 
their  products.  This  increased  competition  is  expected  to  provide  further  benefits  for 
consumers. A lack of data did not allow to quantify the benefits of this option.  (7/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing  field:  As  mentioned  above,  this  option  is  expected  to  increase 
competition and have a positive impact on the level playing field. (6/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: The option is expected to have a minor 
positive impact on the reduction of barriers to cross-border trade. (6/10)  

185 

 
 
 
Administrative burdens: The costs of this option for businesses are expected to be low, 
as sellers will have to provide only such information as manufacturers make it available. 
There will be no additional obligation for manufacturers to provide such information on 
their products. The administrative costs are expected to be between EUR 222 million in 
the period 2025-2040. 

Substantive compliance costs:  
Indirect  costs:  These  costs  are  expected  to  be  low,  and  are  not  expected  to  have  an 
effect  on  the  demand  given  the  average  price  of  the  products  affected  by  the  option. 
(5/10) 
SME growth: The costs imposed by the option are not expected to be significant and 
therefore will not have a significant negative impact on SME growth.  (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement  costs:  This  option  is  expected  to  entail  minimal  enforcement  costs, 
estimated at EUR 0.12 million in the period 2025-2040, generated by the time needed 
to check whether the seller has provided such information at the point of sale when made 
available by the manufacturer.  

Environmental impacts: 

Due to the implementation of the option, some consumers will opt for goods that can be 
more easily repaired. Consequently, the repaired products will have a longer lifespan 
than they would have had in the baseline. For this reason we can conclude that this option 
will have a positive impact on the environment. 
Climate change: Due to the implementation of the option, some consumers will opt for 
goods that can be more easily repaired. Consequently, the repaired products will have a 
longer lifespan than they would have had in the baseline. For this reason we can conclude 
that this option will have a positive impact on the environment. As the option will not 
require  any physical  paper repair manuals  to  be  provided at  the point  of  sale we  can 
estimate that it will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions which is at least greater than 
that of Option 1.3.A in the period 2025-2040. 
Other environmental impacts change: The impact on the production is estimated to 
be moderate, and so  will be the effect  of the option on other environmental impacts. 
(7/10)  
Coherence: Due to the fact that the information to be provided under this option is to 
be provided at the point of sale only when made available by the manufacturer or where 
made available under applicable national or EU law, a very high level of coherence with 
existing EU law is ensured  (9/10) 
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The option will help to increase the share 
of products that are repaired instead of replaced. This contributes to a reduction of waste, 
and to a more circular and sustainable economy.  (7/10) 
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: This option is coherent with the 
legal framework, in that it provides for repair information to be made available at the 
point of sale in precisely those cases where the existing legal framework already requires 
such information to be provided by manufacturers, as well as where manufacturers chose 
to  provide  such  information  voluntarily.  It  is  also  complementary  to  potential  future 
Ecodesign/SPI requirements  which may provide  for further specifications concerning 
what repair information should be included for specific product categories, as well as its 
method of presentation (e.g. via product passport or other). (6/10) 

186 

 
 
 
 
Option 
1.3.E 
Provisi
on of 
Repair 
Scoring 
Index, 
or other 
relevan
t repair 
informa
tion on 
a where 
applica
ble or 
where 
availabl
e basis 
7/10 

6/10 

6/10 

7/10233 

6/10 

6/10 

Recap of the assessment of the options 

Option 
1.3.C 
Info on 
repair 
services 

Option 
1.3.D 
Rep. 
Scoring 
Index 

Criteria and sub-criteria 

Option 
1.3.A 
Repair 
manual 

Option 
1.3.B 
Info on 
spare 
parts 

Impact 
consumers 

on 

Impact 
businesses 

on 

of 

Quality 
consumer 
decision-
making 
Consumer 
protection 
Consumer trust 

Monetisable 
consumer 
welfare  (present 
value for period 
2025-2040) 
Level-playing 
field  
Reduction 
barriers 
cross-border 
trade 
Administrative 
burdens (present 
value for period 
2025-2040) 
Substantive 
compliance 

of 
to 

5/10 

6/10 

4/10 

6/10 

6/10 

6/10 

5/10 

5/10 

6/10 

6/10 

4/10 

4/10 

7/10 
(EUR 
435 – 
760 
million) 

8/10 
(EUR 1 
220 – 2 
970 
million) 

6/10 
(EUR 
115 - 
250 
million) 

 7/10 
(EUR 
455 – 
995 
million) 

5/10 

5/10 

4/10 

5/10 

6/10 

6/10 

3/10 

7/10 

EUR 
785 – 
935 
million 

EUR 
1 685 – 
1 715 
million 

EUR 3 
120 – 3 
380 
million 

EUR 4 
180 – 4 
360 
million 

EUR 
222 
million 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

233 A lack of data did not allow to quantify the benefits of this option.   

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
(present 
costs 
in  EUR 
value 
for period 2025-
2040) 
Indirect costs 

SME growth 

Enforcement 
costs  and  other 
costs 
(present 
value for period 
2025-2040) 
Climate  change 
(present  value 
for period 2025-
2040) 
Other 
environmental 
impacts 
Coherence  with 
other 
EU 
legislation 
Circularity  and 
sustainable 
consumption 
Application  of 
legal 
the  EU 
framework 

on 

Impacts 
public 
administration 

Environmental 
impacts 

Coherence 

Overarching 
impacts 

 5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

4/10 

4/10 

5/10 

EUR 
16-21 
million 

EUR 
16-21 
million 

EUR  
8-13 
million 

EUR 
32-37 
million 

EUR 
0.12 
million 

EUR 
19-33 
million 

EUR  
39-68 
million 

EUR  
1-2 
million 

EUR 
52-78 
million 

7/10 

7/10 

6/10 

7/10 

8/10 

8/10 

8/10 

8/10 

7/10 

7/10 

6/10 

7/10 

5/10 

5/10 

4/10 

4/10 

>0 

7/10 

9/10 

7/10 

6/10 

2. 

Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products 

2.1. 

Sub-Problem 2.1: Consumers are sold products that do not last as long 
as they should and consumers expect 

Assessment of the options 

Option  2.1.A:  Collection  of  evidence  on  early  failures  of  products  identified  by 
authorised entities 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: The option is expected to help consumers become aware 
of possible problems with certain products and therefore take more informed decisions. 
The effectiveness  of the  option might  be reduced by the fact  that the consumers will 
have to actively look for the information on the websites of third parties (for instance, 
consumer  organisations  or  market  monitoring  public  bodies  that  are  assigned  by  the 
MS). 
Furthermore, the option does not require third parties to consistently record evidence of 
early  failures  of  products  present  in  the  market.  It  only  requires  third  parties  to 
communicate it if they have recorded it. This means that the share of products effectively 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
covered will depend on voluntary actions and that the sample of products covered might 
not be fully balanced. (6/10) 
Consumer  protection:  This  option  contributes  to  protecting  consumers  from 
unknowingly purchasing products that are likely to fail earlier than they would expect. 
(6/10) 
Consumer  trust:  This  option  will  increase  the  consumer  trust  in  the  market  as  it 
increases transparency regarding possible problems with certain products.  (6/10) 
Monetisable  Consumer  welfare:  Evidence  collected  in  the  context  of  this  study 
indicate  that  a  share  of  products  fails  before  what  could  be  reasonably  expected234, 
causing  personal  consumer  detriment.  As  such  this  option  is  expected  to  lead  to  an 
increase in the consumer surplus, which is estimated to amount to EUR 100-180 million 
(present value for the period 2025-2040) as consumers will avoid product that would fail 
earlier than they expect. (6/10) 

Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The option is expected to have an impact on the level playing field. 
However, issues  related to  possible incomprehensive and unbalanced coverage might 
limit this impact and some third parties might be more active than others. Nevertheless, 
cooperation  between  the  assigned  third  parties  in  different  Member  States  may  limit 
costs and allows for specialisation (e.g. on certain product categories). (7/10) 
Reduction of barriers  to cross-border trade:  The option is  expected to  have some 
impact on barriers to cross-border trade, as in the future, it is expected that some Member 
States  will  independently  legislate  on  this  if  no  EU  level  legislation  is  in  place.  A 
harmonised approach to inform consumers about possible evidence of early failure will 
therefore contribute to a more consistent approach and avoid duplication. (7/10) 
Administrative  burdens:  The  option  does  not  oblige  third  parties  to  collect  the 
information, only to make it available to consumers. Consequently, third parties have 
costs with updating their websites with the information collected (estimated at is EUR 
4-5 million for the period 2025-2040) but the non-pubic third parties may compensate it 
through membership fees, or public funds made available to them. 
Substantive compliance costs: None have been identified. (EUR 0) 
Indirect costs: No impact expected. (5/10) 
SME growth: No impact expected. (5/10)  
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs: Enforcement of the option will be challenging due to the voluntary 
nature  of  collecting  information,  which  means  that  enforcement  authorities  will  have 
difficulties in identifying situations in which the third party has information but does not 
disclose it. However, these situations are expected to be rare. Based on interviews with 
some authorities, it is assumed that the option would not require significant additional 
resources on top of the existing ones to enforce UCPD. The costs are estimated to be of 
EUR 7-8 million for the period 2025-2040235(present value).   
Environmental impacts: 

Climate  change:  Due  to  the  implementation  of  the  option,  (some)  consumers  will 
purchase  products  that  will  last  longer.  Consequently,  the  average  lifespan  of  the 
products owned by consumers will increase. This will lead to a reduction of produced 
units and thus of CO2 emissions estimated at 0.2 – 0.4 mega tons (present value for the 

234 These “expectations” refer to indicative expected lifespan from reviewed technical studies. 
235  Based on 0.5 extra staff per Member State, 35 hours of familiarization with the measure. 

189 

 
 
 
                                                           
period 2025-2040 of EUR 4 - 8 million) during production (estimate under a scenario 
based on products lasting at least 1 year longer), for the period 2025-2040. 
Other environmental impacts change. The impact on the production is estimated to 
be moderate, and so will be the effect of the option on other environmental impacts and 
on the production of electric and electronic waste. (7/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The option will help to increase the share 
of  products  that  last  longer.  This  contributes  to  a  reduction  of  waste,  and  to  a  more 
circular and sustainable economy.  (6/10)  
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: No impact expected. (5/10) 

Option 2.1.B: Ban of certain identified practices associated to early obsolescence 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: No impact expected. (5/10) 
Consumer protection:  This option contributes to protecting consumers by removing 
products from the market that would fail earlier than consumers would expect as a result 
of certain  practices  banned by the option.  It  would  also  help  at  protecting vulnerable 
consumers that may be more susceptible to aggressive, manipulative techniques that lure 
them into buying products that fail early. The magnitude of the impact will depend on 
the incidence of the banned practices and on the compliance level. (8/10) 
Consumer  trust:  This  option  will  increase  the  consumer  trust  in  the  market  as  it 
prevents situations where consumers would be misled by traders. (9/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: A share (5%-20% depending on the product type) of 
products  fails  significantly  earlier  than  could  be  reasonably  expected,  which  leads  to 
personal  consumer  detriment.  This  option  is  expected  to  lead  to  an  increase  in  the 
consumer surplus, which is estimated to amount to EUR 1 800 – 2 250 million for the 
period 2025-2040 (present value based on failures occurring the first 60% of the product 
lifespan). (8/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The option is expected to contribute very positively to the level 
playing  field.  This  is  because,  in  the  baseline,  companies  engaging  in  the  banned 
practices have lower costs than their competitors and charge higher prices to consumers 
(than they would if consumers knew the real expected lifespan of the products) because 
consumers assume that the products would have an expected lifespan not much different 
from the average. (9/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: The option is expected to reduce barriers 
to cross-border trade, as one Member State has already legislated on this issue and others 
may legislate as well (two are currently discussing specific proposals for legislation) if 
no EU-level legislation is in place. (8/10) 
Administrative burdens: None identified.   
Substantive compliance costs: The substantive compliance costs of companies will be 
caused by the need to revise their production process in order to not engage in the banned 
practices and possibly improve their products. The costs are difficult to estimate as they 
depend on the list of practices that will be banned, the scale of these practices and the 
specificities of the production process of those companies engaging in these practices. 
While fully aware of these limitations, a very rough estimation of the possible costs for 
companies  was  done  by  screening  the  prices  of  various  product  types  on  online 

190 

 
 
 
 
marketplaces,  identifying the price of the  cheapest  product,  and assuming that it will 
cost between 7.5% and 15% extra to comply with the option and improve the product 
accordingly. Such costs are estimated to amount to EUR 1 190 – 1630 million for the 
period 2025-2040 (present value), falling mainly on large manufacturers. These costs 
include  those  related  to  the  familiarisation  with  the  measures  (applicable  to  all 
businesses) as  well as those linked to  the need to  review internal  processes for these 
companies using practices targeted by the option.   
Indirect costs: The substantive compliance costs will be passed on to consumers, and 
will be compensated by revenues to some extent (as the volume of sales might be lower 
due to the increase in prices). (5/10) 
SME growth: The number of SMEs manufacturers is very small and so the negative 
impact  of  the  option  on  the  overall  SMEs  growth  is  expected  to  be  negligible.  By 
preventing these unfair practices, SMEs that were not practicing them and suffered from 
uneven playing field will have a better opportunity to grow. (6/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs and other costs: Enforcement of the option will require the creation 
or strengthening of the team currently responsible for addressing obsolescence practices 
in  each  Member  State.  Technical  knowledge  will  be  required  so  that  authorities  can 
assess compliance with a certain banned practice. 
Currently only 1 Member State has specific legislation on planned obsolescence, so it is 
expected that nearly all Member States will need to strengthen their teams dealing with 
the matter. Under the assumption that each Member State would need 7 full-time staff 
to  monitor  the  market,  handle  complaints  and  carry  out  inspections,  the  enforcement 
costs are estimated at EUR 103-104 million (present value) for the period from 2025 
until 2040236.  
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: Due to the implementation of the option, the average lifespan of the 
product owned by consumers will increase and the need to produce replacement products 
decreases proportionally. This will lead to a reduction of produced units and thus of CO2 
emissions estimated at 3.5 – 4.3 mega tons (present value of EUR 72 - 90 million) during 
production for the period 2025- 2040. 
Other environmental impacts change. For the same reasons, it is expected that less 
water  will  be  used  and  few  matriculate  latter  and  polluting  agents  will  be  released. 
Longer-lasting products are also expected to reduce the amount of waste. (8/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The option will help to increase the share 
of products that are repaired instead of replaced. This contributes to a reduction of waste, 
and to a more circular and sustainable economy.  (8/10)  
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: This option is expected to have a 
significant  impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal 
consumer framework, in particular the Unfair Commercial Practice Directive. (8/10) 

236 Based on 7 extra staff per Member State, 70 hours of familiarization with the measure. The costs of adjudication are 
expected to be significantly higher than average given the complexity of the matter. We assume that one ADR case 
will costs around EUR 7,756 and a court case around five times the average. 

191 

 
 
 
                                                           
Recap of the assessment 

Criteria and sub-criteria 

Impact 
consumers 

on 

Impact 
businesses 

on 

on 

Impacts 
public 
administration 

of 

Quality 
consumer 
decision-
making 
Consumer 
protection 
Consumer 
trust 
Monetisable 
Consumer 
Welfare 
(present  value 
for 
period 
2025-2040) 
Level-playing 
field  
Reduction  of 
barriers 
to 
cross-border 
trade 
Administrative 
burdens 
(present  value 
for 
period 
2025-2040) 
Substantive 
compliance 
costs  (present 
value 
for 
period  2025-
2040) 
Indirect costs 

SME growth 

Enforcement 
costs and other 
costs  (present 
value 
for 
period  2025-
2040) 

Option 2.1.A 
Gathering 
evidence on 
recorded 
early failures 

Option 2.1.B 
Ban of 
certain 
practices 
associated to 
premature 
obsolescence 

6/10 

5/10 

6/10 

6/10 

8/10 

9/10 

6/10 
(EUR 100-180 
million) 

8/10 
(EUR 1 800 – 
2 250 million) 

7/10 

9/10 

7/10 

8/10 

EUR 4-5 
million 

EUR 0 

EUR 0 

EUR 1 190 – 
1 630 million  

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

6/10 

EUR 7-8 
million 

EUR 103-104 
million 

192 

 
 
Environmental 
impacts 

Coherence 

Overarching 
impacts 

Climate 
change 
(present  value 
for 
period 
2025-2040) 
Other 
environmental 
impacts 
Coherence 
with  other  EU 
legislation 
Circularity and 
sustainable 
consumption 
Application  of 
the  EU  legal 
framework 

EUR 4 - 8 
million 

EUR 72 - 90 
million  

7/10 

8/10 

8/10 

8/10 

6/10 

8/10 

5/10 

8/10 

2.2. 

Sub-Problem  2.2:  Consumers  are  faced  with  the  practice  of  making 
unclear or not well-substantiated green claims (“Greenwashing”) 

Assessment of the options 
Option 2.2.A: Ban of general /vague environmental claims   
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making:  
Under  this  option,  general/vague  statements  on  the  environmental  performance  of 
products  (such  as  “good  for  the  environment”,  “friend  of  nature”  etc.)  would  be 
forbidden  unless  the  product  is  considered  to  have  an  “environmentally  excellent 
performance”. This can be proven by the EU Eco-label, or equivalent public ecolabels 
at the national level or in accordance with the Green Claims Initiative. This option would 
complement  the  Green  Claims  Initiative  that  will  not  specifically  address  vague 
statements.  General  and  vague  environmental  claims  can  mislead  consumers  into 
purchasing products that are not as “good for the environment” as the consumers are 
made to believe. This problem is one of the most common greenwashing practices and 
has been documented by various studies. It is also in line with the evidence collected in 
the  stakeholder  consultations  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this  study,  including  the 
feedback from the national enforcers further to the recent “sweep”. The Guidance on the 
application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive already recommended in 2016 
to  avoid  such  vague  statements.  By  banning  such  vague  statements  (unless  there  are 
robust  indications  of  environmental  excellence  of  products)  the  option  prevents 
consumers from  taking  decisions based on unreliable information  and also  highlights 
which products are truly “environmental excellent”. The option is expected to have a 
positive impact on the decision making of consumers. (8/10) 
Consumer  protection:  This  option  contributes  to  protecting  consumers  from  basing 
their  purchasing  decisions  (possibly  involving  monetary  trade-offs)  on  misleading 
decision. (7/10) 
Consumer  trust:  Evidence  from  literature  suggests  that  the  proliferation  of  vague 
environmental  claims  has  been  contributing  to  a  decrease  in  consumer  confidence  in 
environmental  information.  By  banning  this  type  of  statements  (unless  properly 

193 

 
 
 
substantiated) this option is expected to have a positive impact on consumer trust. This 
has also been highlighted by stakeholders from all groups and by the independent experts 
consulted. (8/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: The approach to quantification of the impact of the 
option on the monetisable consumer welfare was the following: 
Step  1.  Estimate  the  percentage  of  products  carrying  vague/general  environmental 
claims that will be forbidden if the option is implemented.237 
Step  2.  Estimate  the  share  of  consumers  that  were  purchasing  those  products  (in  the 
baseline)  and  that  will  not  buy  them  anymore  and  will  purchase  “greener”  products 
instead. 
Step 3. Estimate how much the consumers that switched to greener products are willing 
to pay for these “greener products”.238 
The  option  is  thus  expected  to  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  consumer  surplus,  which  is 
estimated to amount to EUR 2 155 – 3 960 million (present value for the period 2025-
2040). (8/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The impact of the option on the level-playing field is expected to 
be  positive  as  products  with  unsubstantiated  vague  claims  will  no  longer  be  as 
competitive as products that are indeed environmentally excellent and favoured to the 
detriment of products without environmental claims.   (8/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Administrative burdens: No impacts identified.  
Substantive compliance costs:  
Products with unsubstantiated vague claims will have to have these claims removed. The 
time between the approval of the option and its implementation will allow businesses to 
adjust to the new rules and so most of the products will not hold those claims any longer. 
The removal of the claims would require adjustments to product packages, flyers, etc., 
but this will be a one-off cost. For the very small share of products in stock just before 
the implementation of the option, it is assumed that the claims will be removed by the 
seller (for example, by covering them with a sticker). This will impose some costs in the 
first  two  years of implementation  of the option, after which we assume that all these 
products have been sold. The substantive compliance costs are estimated at EUR 2 900 
– 3 150 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value)239.   
Indirect costs: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
SME growth: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs and other costs: Enforcement of the option will be facilitated by 
the  fact  that  it  specifies  what  type  of  proof  is  accepted  in  order  to  use  vague 
environmental  claims  (e.g.  environmentally  excellent  performance  as  attested  for 
example by the presence of the EU Ecolabel). Some of the interviewed CPC authorities 
indicated that the option could lead to savings as it will help them to prove the practice 
of  “greenwashing”  more  easily  (less  resources  are  needed  to  substantiate  their 
assessment). For these Member States, the option is not expected to bring incremental 

237 This will be based on sales data, and have assumed proportionality between the share of products and the share of 

sales. The source of the data was the DG ENV study. 

238  It is assumed that the costs of the products with vague non-substantiated claims and with vague substantiated claims 

is similar. 

239 The total costs are high because the measure applies to a very high number of companies, with the costs per company 

per year in the period 2025-2040 estimated to be around EUR 40. 

194 

 
 
                                                           
costs. For the others, it will require one Full Time equivalent working half time with 
50% of its time devoted to monitoring, 25% to inspections and the remaining 25% to 
handle complaints. Overall, the enforcement costs are estimated at EUR 7-12 million for 
the period 2025-2040 (present value). 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: As a result of the implementation of the option, (some) consumers will 
purchase products that will be truly greener (instead of those that only claim to be).  
It is not possible to assess how much “greener” those products will be (compared to the 
alternative that would be purchased in the baseline). For this reason, while it is expected 
that this impact is highly positive, an exact quantification of the impacts is not possible. 
Other environmental impacts change. The impact on other environmental impacts is 
also expected to be positive. (7/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. The option will complement the general 
safety net of the UCPD. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The option will, in principle, increase the 
consumption of more sustainable products. (7/10) 
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: This option will have a positive 
impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer 
framework, in particular of the UCPD. (8/10) 

Option 2.2.B: Prohibition of environmental claims that do not fulfil a minimum set 
of criteria 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making:  
Unsubstantiated  environmental  claims  misinform  consumers  and  also  reduce  the 
capacity of the substantiated claims to inform decisions. This option would particularly 
act  as  a  safety  net  for  the  claims  not  covered  under  the  Green  Claims  Initiative  (for 
instance,  claims  made  on  biodiversity,  forest  management,  reparability,  durability  or 
implicit claims like imagery and overall product presentation including layout, choice 
of colours, images, pictures and sounds). 
By forbidding claims that do not meet minimum criteria, this option will contribute to 
improving the reliability of the information provided to consumers and therefore will 
have a positive impact on the decision making of consumers. (8/10) 
Consumer protection: Same as option 2.2.A. (7/10) 
Consumer trust: Same as option 2.2.A. (8/10) 
Consumer welfare: The approach to quantification of the impact of the option on the 
monetisable  consumer  welfare  is  similar  to  the  one  followed  for  option  2.2.A.  This 
impact is estimated to amount to be EUR 1 580 – 2 910 million (present value for the 
period 2025-2040). (8/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: Same as with option 2.2.A.  (8/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Administrative burdens: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Substantive compliance costs:  
Products  with  claims  that  do  not  meet  the  criteria  will  have  to  have  these  claims 
removed. The time between the approval of the option and its implementation will allow 
businesses to adjust to the new rules and so most of the products will not hold those 

195 

 
 
 
 
claims  any  longer.  The  removal  of  the  claims  will  require  adjustments  to  product 
packages, flyers, etc., but this will be a one-off cost.  For the very small share of products 
in  stock  just  before  the  approval  of  the  option,  it  is  assumed  that  the  claims  will  be 
removed by the seller (for example, by covering them with a sticker). This will impose 
some costs in the first two years of implementation of the option, after which we assume 
that all these products have been sold. The substantive compliance costs are estimated 
at EUR 2 900 – 3 150 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value), of which about 
99% will be for SMEs240. 
Indirect costs: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
SME growth: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs and other costs: The contribution of this option to more effective 
enforcement will be less pronounced than that of option 2.2.A as authorities would need 
to assess to what extent the specific claim complies with the criteria set out under this 
option. However a number of the interviewed CPC authorities indicated that the option 
might lead to savings as it will mean that less resources are needed to substantiate their 
assessment of “greenwashing”. Overall, the costs are expected to be similar to those of 
option 2.2.A and amount to EUR 7-12 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value). 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: The option will not have a direct impact on climate change as it does 
not  cover  claims  related  to  this  aspect.  However,  it  is  still  expected  to  have  a  minor 
indirect impact. 
Other environmental impacts change. The impact on other environmental impacts is 
also expected to be positive but reduced as the main environmental impacts are covered 
by PEF and therefore not within the scope of this option. (6/10) 
Coherence:  No  issue  of  coherence  identified.  The  option  will  feature  as  part  of  the 
general  safety  net  of  the  UCPD  and  will  be  complementary  to  the  Green  Claims 
initiative. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity  and  sustainable  consumption:  The  option  will,  in  principle,  slightly 
increase the consumption of more sustainable products. (6/10) 
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: This option will have a positive 
impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer 
framework, in particular of the UCPD. (8/10) 

Option 2.2.C: 2.2.A+2.2.B 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality of decision-making: Combination of the impacts described for option 2.2.A 
and option 2.2.B (9/10) 
Consumer  protection:  Combination  of  the  impacts  described  for  option  2.2.A  and 
option 2.2.B (8/10) 
Consumer  trust:  Combination  of  the  impacts  described  for  option  2.2.A  and  option 
2.2.B (9/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: Combination of the impacts described for option 
2.2.A  and  option  2.2.B.  The  option  is  thus  expected  to  lead  to  an  increase  in  the 

240 The total costs are high because the measure applies to a very high number of companies, with the costs per company 

per year in the period 2025-2040 estimated to be around EUR 40. 

196 

 
 
 
                                                           
consumer surplus, which is estimated to amount to approximately EUR 3 735 – 6 870 
million (present value for the period 2025-2040). (9/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: Combination of the impacts described for option 2.2.A and option 
2.2.B (8/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Administrative burdens: No impacts identified.  
Substantive  compliance  costs:  There  are  certain  economies  of  scales  when  the  two 
options are combined, related to the fact that the removal of the relevant claims for the 
small  share of products  in stock for which each  of the two types of claims  are made 
(vague  claims  which  are  not  based  on  “environmentally  excellent  performance”  in 
accordance  with  applicable  EU  laws  +  environmental  claims  that  do  not  fulfil  a 
minimum set of criteria) can be conducted simultaneously. The substantive compliance 
costs are estimated EUR 3 300 – 3500 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value), 
of which about 99% will be for SMEs241. 
Indirect costs: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
SME growth: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs and other costs: There are significant economies of scales when 
the two options are combined due to the fact that the expertise needed to investigate the 
two different types of claims at issue will be quite similar. Overall, the enforcement costs 
are estimated at EUR 7-12 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value). 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: This impact is highly positive (at least as high as the one of option 
2.2.A, but an exact quantification of the impacts is not possible. 
Other environmental impacts change. The impact on other environmental impacts is 
also expected to be positive. (7/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The option will, in principle, increase the 
consumption of more sustainable products. (8/10) 
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: This option will have a positive 
impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer 
framework, in particular of the UCPD. (8/10) 

Recap of the assessment  

Criteria and sub-criteria 

Option 
2.2.A Ban 
of 
unfounded 
general 

Option 2.2.B 
Ban of 
claims not 
fulfilling 
minimum 
criteria 

Option 
2.2.C = 
2.2.A + 
2.2.B 

241 The total costs are high because the measure applies to a very high number of companies, with the costs per company 

per year in the period 2025-2040 estimated to be around EUR 40. 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
green 
claims 

8/10 

7/10 

8/10 

8/10 
(EUR 2 
155 – 3 
960 
million) 

8/10 

5/10 

8/10 

7/10 

8/10 

9/10 

8/10 

9/10 

8/10 
(EUR 1 580 – 
2 910 
million) 

9/10 
(EUR 3 
735 – 6870 
million) 

8/10 

5/10 

8/10 

5/10 

EUR 0 

EUR 3 300 
– 3 500 
million 

5/10 

5/10 

EUR 0 

EUR 0 

EUR 2 900 
– 3 150 

EUR 2 900 – 
3 150 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

EUR 7-12 
million 

EUR 7-12 
million 

EUR 7-12 
million 

Positive 
and 
possibly 
high 

7/10 

8/10 

7/10 

8/10 

Positive but 
minor 

6/10 

8/10 

6/10 

8/10 

Positive 
and 
possibly 
high 
7/10 

8/10 

7/10 

8/10 

Impact 
consumers 

on 

Quality  of  consumer 
decision-making 
Consumer protection 

Consumer trust 

Monetisable  Consumer 
Welfare  (present  value 
for period 2025-2040) 

on 

Level-playing field  

Impact 
businesses 

on 

Impacts 
public 
administration 

Environmental 
impacts 

Coherence 

Overarching 
impacts 

Reduction  of  barriers  to 
cross-border trade 
Administrative  burdens 
(present value for period 
2025-2040) 
Substantive  compliance 
costs  (present  value  for 
period 2025-2040) 
Indirect costs 

SME growth 

Enforcement  costs  and 
other 
(present 
costs 
value  for  period  2025-
2040) 
Climate change 

environmental 

Other 
impacts 
Coherence  with  other 
EU legislation 
Circularity 
and 
sustainable consumption 
Application  of  the  EU 
legal framework 

198 

 
 
 
2.3. 

Sub-Problem 2.3: Consumers are faced with the use of sustainability 
labels and digital information tools that are not always transparent or 
credible 

Assessment of the options 
Option  2.3.A:  Development  of  principles  promoting  the  transparency  and 
credibility  of    sustainability  labels  and  digital  information  tools  for  voluntary 
uptake 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality  of  decision-making:  The  proliferation  of  labels  with  varying  degrees  of 
transparency  and  reliability  has  been  identified  as  a  barrier  to  the  adoption  of  more 
sustainable consumption behaviour. 
Desk  research  shows  that  there  is  still  a  reduced  number  of  fully  dedicated  digital 
information tools to help consumers compare products based on their sustainability. On 
the other hand, desk research also shows that more and more marketplaces and online 
shops are giving consumers an indication of the sustainability of the products they sell 
and also that the number of dedicated comparison tools is expected to increase. 
The consumer survey also showed that the number of consumers currently using these 
tools is moderate (6% use them all the time and 19% often) and that many (25%) are not 
aware of the existence of these tools. The digitalisation  of the economy  and positive 
trends regarding consumer interest in adopting more sustainable consumption behaviour 
is expected to boost the use of such apps and promote their proliferation. 
The introduction of minimum criteria for  sustainability labels and digital information 
tools which would increase the transparency and reliability of labels (and possibly slow 
down  or  even  invert  the  current  proliferation  of  these  labels)  and  of  the  assessments 
provided  by  the  digital  information  tools,  would  therefore  enhance  the  quality  of 
consumer decision-making. 
However, this option would rely on voluntary uptake only which would mean that there 
would be no obligation to fulfil the minimum criteria. The option does not foresee a way 
to help consumers identify which labels  and digital information tools adhere to those 
minimum  criteria and which do not  so the impact  of the option on the quality of the 
decision-making is assessed as negligible. The view of some independent experts and 
consumer  associations  consulted  was  that  voluntary  actions  would  have  a  very  low 
effectiveness. (5/10) 
Consumer protection: No impact expected. (5/10) 
Consumer trust: No impact expected. (5/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: Given the expected very low effectiveness, the expected 
impact on the monetisable consumer welfare is around zero. (5/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The impact of the option on the level-playing field is also expected 
to be negligible as consumers will not be able to distinguish which labels/logos adhere 
to the minimum criteria and which do not. (5/10) 
Reduction of barriers to cross-border trade: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Administrative burdens: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Substantive compliance costs:  
No  substantive  compliance  costs  were  identified  for  this  option  given  its  voluntary 
nature and the expectation that only labels/logos already meeting minimum standards 
will adopt the option. 
Indirect costs: No impacts identified. (5/10) 

199 

 
 
SME growth: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs and other costs: Given the voluntary nature of the option there will 
be no enforcement costs associated. 
Other  costs  to  public  bodies  (including  the  Commission)  will  be  related  to  the 
organisation of meetings and preparation of the minimum criteria. These are estimated 
to be around EUR 94 000 in the first year and about EUR 16 000 per year242 . 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change: The climate change impact is expected to be negligible (around zero) 
for the reasons mentioned above. 
Other environmental impacts change. The impact on other environmental impacts is 
also expected to negligible. (5/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. (8/10)  
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The impact on circularity and consumption 
of sustainable products is expected to be negligible. (5/10) 
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: No impact expected. (5/10) 

Option 2.3.B: Prohibition of sustainability labels and digital information tools not 
meeting minimum transparency and credibility requirements   
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality  of  decision-making:  The  introduction  of  minimum  criteria  that  all 
sustainability  labels  and  digital  information  tools  would  have  to  adhere  to  would 
increase  the  transparency  and  credibility  of  labels  (and  possibly  slow  down  or  even 
reverse the current proliferation of these labels) and digital information tools, and will 
enhance the quality of consumer decision-making.  
Consumers  will  be  assured  that  the  products  holding  a  sustainability  label  will  meet 
minimum requirement on transparency and credibility so consumers can rely on them in 
their purchasing decisions. As labels will be more transparent, consumers will be also 
able to obtain this information on the labels’ website which can help them assess and 
select the products they find most useful to inform their purchase decisions. Given the 
amount  of  information  and  the  high  number  of  labels,  it  is  expected  that  not  all 
consumers will compare all labels for a given product category, which may reduce the 
potential impact of the option to some extent. This option may also reduce the number 
of labels which will improve consumer trust and consumer understanding of the labels. 
Furthermore, this option also ensures the transparency of the assessments provided by 
the  digital  information  tools,  which  has  a  positive  impact  on  the  decision  making 
(slightly  positive  at  the  beginning  but  with  an  upward  trend).The  magnitude  of  the 
impact will depend on the strictness of the criteria. The analysis was done assuming the 
criteria will be relatively similar to the governance criteria of a number of well-known 
and reputable public and private sustainability labelling schemes.  (8/10) 
Consumer protection: This option will prevent consumers from being misled by labels 
and digital  information  tools  that do not  meet  minimum  criteria and ensure that they 
have the necessary information about their functioning and reliability. (8/10) 

242  Assuming six meetings in the first year to discuss and prepare the minimum criteria and then one meeting a year to 

revise the criteria. 

200 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Consumer trust: The impact on consumer trust is expected to be high. This is in line 
with the results of the consumer survey carried out in this study (and with evidence from 
literature) and was also highlighted by the consulted experts and consumer organisations 
and NGOs. However, the reliance on self-assessment and ex-post enforcement may not 
give the full reassurance to consumers that labels and digital information tools really do 
comply with the minimum criteria. (8/10) 
Monetisable  Consumer  welfare:  The  impact  on  consumer  welfare  depends  on  the 
extent of the impact of the measure in increasing consumer trust in logos/labels (it was 
not possible to calculate the monetisable consumer welfare related to digital information 
tools). When assuming a moderate impact on consumer trust, this option is estimated to 
increase consumer welfare by approximately EUR 4 500 – 6 610 million for the period 
2025-2040243 (present value). (9/10) 
Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing  field:  The  option  is  expected  to  contribute  to  a  level-playing  field 
between products displaying labels or being compared by digital information tool, as all 
will have to adhere to the same minimum criteria. 
Furthermore,  it  will  also  contribute  to  a  level  playing  field  between  organisations 
running labels and digital information tools. (8/10) 
Reduction  of  barriers  to  cross-border  trade:  Member  States  are  more  and  more 
concerned with the proliferation of labels/logos that are non-transparent or not credible. 
The  consumer  association  in  the  Netherlands  has  called  the  Dutch  government  to 
legislate on this matter. Other Member States are expected to follow the same path. In 
the future, it is likely that Member States will have non-harmonised legislation to address 
this issue. This will increase legal uncertainty and costs to companies (as they will have 
to adhere to different rules) wanting to undertake cross-border trade. (8/10) 
Administrative  burdens:  The  entities  running  and  managing  the  labels/logos  and 
digital information tools will have administrative costs resulting from: 
- 

becoming familiarised with the option and the minimum criteria and assessing to 
what extent they meet the criteria and what changes they will need to implement 
(a share of these costs could be considered substantive compliance costs); 
training staff (a share of these costs could be considered substantive compliance 
costs); 
ensure that all the necessary information is available on their website (or through 
other means) and that it is up to date; 
carrying out the necessary (internal and external) inspections (a share of these 
costs could be considered substantive compliance costs).  

- 

- 

- 

These costs are estimated to amount to EUR 615 – 620 million for the period 2025-2040 
(present value). These do not include the costs for digital information tools as there is 
very limited data about the number of apps currently. 
Substantive compliance costs:  
The  entities  running  and  managing  the  labels  and  digital  information  tools  will  have 
substantive compliance costs resulting from implementing the necessary changes in their 
internal processes, including carrying out third party certifications for each application 
(if they are not doing it already at the baseline). The costs incurred by the entities running 
and managing the labels will be passed on to the manufacturers and sellers applying for 
the label.  These  costs are estimated to  amount to  EUR 3 025  - 3 500 million for the 

243  Based on the share of labels that do not currently comply with the criteria, the share of consumers that do not take 
account of logos as they do not trust them, the increase in the share of more sustainable products and the estimated 
willingness to pay for these products.  

201 

 
 
                                                           
period 2025-2040 (present value). These do not include the costs for digital information 
tools as there is very limited data about the number of tools currently. 
Indirect costs: The costs of applying for labels are expected to increase. On the other 
hand,  the  increased  harmonisation  might  reduce  the  need  to  apply  to  several  labels. 
(5/10) 
SME growth: No impacts identified. (5/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs and other costs: Enforcement costs were estimated assuming that 
one Full Time Equivalent will work to monitor (50%), carry out inspections (40%) and 
handle complaints (10%)”. Enforcement is not expected to be very challenging since the 
proposed minimum criteria require all relevant information to be provided online. 
A  few  CPC  authorities  indicated  that  the  introduction  of  clear  criteria  to  increase 
transparency and reliability will, in fact, make the process of fighting misleading labels 
less complex and resource-intensive and could lead to savings. These costs are estimated 
to amount to EUR 14 – 15 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value).  
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change:  
The climate change impact is expected to be positive as: 
- 

consumers of products holding sustainable labels in the baseline, will be able to 
select the truly sustainable ones instead of products that only claimed to be 
sustainable; 
some consumers who in the baseline would not buy sustainable products because 
they did not trust labels, will now start trusting those labels and purchase products 
that have them. 

- 

However, estimation of the impacts is extremely challenging for various reasons:  
- 

sustainability labels cover various impacts, which may or may not include climate 
change; 
there is no available data on the share of sales per label 
there is no data on the difference between the CO2e of a product holding a certain 
label or holding a different one or not holding any. 

- 
- 

For these reasons, it is not possible to quantify and monetise this impact.  
Other environmental impacts change. The impact on other environmental impacts is 
also  expected  to  positive.  The  magnitude  of  the  impact  depends  on  various  factors; 
however,  including  coverage  of  these  impacts  by  labels/logos  and  update  of  those 
labels/logos. (7/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. This option will be complementary to 
the  Green  Claims  Initiative  as  it  will  introduce  only  ‘credibility/transparency 
requirements  on  sustainability  labels  and  the  scope  will  be  broader  than  only 
ecolabels. (8/10) 
Overarching impacts: 

Circularity and sustainable consumption: The impact on circularity and consumption 
of sustainable products is expected to be positive. (7/10) 
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: This option will have a positive 
impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer 
framework, in particular of the UCPD. (8/10) 

Option  2.3.C:    Option  2.3.C:  Pre-approval  of  sustainability  labels  and  digital 
information tools via an EU body 

202 

 
 
 
 
Impacts on consumers: 

Quality  of  decision-making:  The  impacts  are  similar  to  those  described  for  option 
2.3.B. (8/10) 
Consumer protection: The impacts are similar to those described for option 2.3.B but 
higher, as the compliance level will be higher given that only pre-approved labels/logos 
and digital information tools will be allowed. (9/10) 
Consumer trust: The impacts are similar to those described for option 2.3.B. (8/10) 
Monetisable Consumer welfare: The consumer welfare is estimated to amount to EUR 4 
500 – 6 610 million for the period 2025-2040 (present value), similar to option 2.3.B. 
(9/10) 

Impacts on businesses: 

Level-playing field: The impacts are similar to those described for option 2.3.B because 
on  the  one  hand  compliance  level  might  be  higher  given  that  only  pre-approved 
labels/logos will be allowed on the other hand the fees and bureaucratic procedure as 
well  as  the  time  required  to  get  the  pre-approval  might  be  entry  barriers  to  smaller 
companies. (8/10) 
Reduction  of  barriers  to  cross-border  trade:  The  impacts  are  similar  to  those 
described for option 2.3.B but slightly higher, as the compliance level may be higher 
given that only pre-approved labels and digital information tools will be allowed. (8/10) 
Administrative burdens: The administrative burdens are similar to the ones described 
for the managers of labels in the context of option 2.3.B. These costs are estimated to 
amount to EUR 615 – 620 million for the period 2025-2040. 
Substantive compliance costs:  
The substantive compliance costs are similar to those described for option 2.3.B plus an 
additional fee when applying for pre-approval (which we assume will be similar to the 
upper limit of the EU Ecolabel fee). This will amount to EUR 3 120 - 3 580 million for 
the period 2025-2040.  
Indirect costs: No significant indirect costs were identified. (5/10) 
SME growth: The pre-approval of labels and of digital information tools may constitute 
a relevant entry barrier for SME (4/10) 
Impacts on public administrations: 

Enforcement costs and other costs:  
Costs will be significantly higher than in option 2.3.B as all labels will need to be pre-
approved  by  an  EU  body.  The  costs  of  setting  up  and  running  the  EU  body244  were 
considered to be around EUR 4.02 million per year, which corresponds to a net present 
value for the period 2025-2040 of about EUR 42 million. 
National enforcement costs are estimated to be similar to those under option 2.3.B and 
amount to EUR 14 - 15 million for the period 2025-2040. 
Environmental impacts: 

Climate change:  
The climate change impact is expected to be similar to those estimated for option 2.3.B.  
Other environmental impacts change. The other environmental impacts are expected 
to be similar to the ones of option 2.3.B. (7/10) 
Coherence: No issue of coherence identified. (8/10)   
Overarching impacts: 

244 

Source: 

up 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2016/EN/SWD-2016-303-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF  

BEREC 

running 

setting 

costs 

and 

office. 

203 

 
 
                                                           
Circularity and sustainable consumption: The impact on circularity and consumption 
of sustainable products is expected to be more positive than that of option 2.3.B. (7/10) 
Application of the EU legal consumer framework: This option will have a positive 
impact  on  ensuring  a  better  and  coherent  application  of  the  EU  legal  consumer 
framework, in particular of the UCPD. (8/10) 

Recap of the assessment 

Criteria and sub-criteria 

Impact 
consumers 

on 

Impact 
businesses 

on 

of 

Quality 
consumer 
decision-making 
Consumer 
protection 
Consumer trust 

Monetisable 
consumer  welfare 
(present  value  for 
period 2025-2040) 
Level-playing field 

(present 
for  period 

Reduction 
of 
barriers  to  cross-
border trade 
Administrative 
burdens 
value 
2025-2040) 
Substantive 
compliance  costs 
(present  value  for 
period 2025-2040) 
Indirect costs 

SME growth 

Option 
2.3.A  
Development 
of principles 
promoting 
the 
transparency 
and 
credibility of  
sustainability 
labels and 
digital 
information 
tools for 
voluntary 
uptake 

Option 2.3.B 

Prohibition of 
sustainability 
labels and 
digital 
information 
tools not 
meeting 
minimum 
transparency 
and credibility 
requirements   

Option 
2.3.C 
Pre-approval 
of 
sustainability 
labels and 
digital 
information 
tools via an 
EU body 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

8/10 

8/10 

8/10 

5/10 
(EUR 0) 

9/10 
(EUR 4 500 – 
6 610 million) 

5/10 

5/10 

8/10 

8/10 

8/10 

9/10 

8/10 

9/10 
(EUR 4 500 
– 6 610 
million) 

8/10 

8/10 

EUR 0 

EUR 600 – 
625 million 

EUR 600 – 
625 million 

EUR 0 

EUR 3 025 - 
3 500 million 

EUR 3 120 - 
3 580 million 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

5/10 

204 

 
 
 
 
 
on 

Impacts 
public 
administration 

Environmental 
impacts 

Coherence 

Overarching 
impacts 

Enforcement  costs 
and  other  costs 
(present  value  for 
period 2025-2040) 
Climate 
change 
(present  value  for 
period 2025-2040) 
Other 
environmental 
impacts 
Coherence  with 
other 
EU 
legislation 
Circularity 
sustainable 
consumption 
Application  of  the 
EU 
legal 
framework 

and 

EUR 0.3 
million 

EUR 14-15 
million 

EUR 56-57 
million 

EUR 0 

>EUR 0 

>EUR 0 

5/10 

7/10 

7/10 

8/10 

8/10 

8/10 

5/10 

7/10 

7/10 

5/10 

8/10 

8/10 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9: DETAILED RESULTS FROM THE COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND FROM THE 

MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS 

1. 

General approach to compare the various option/options 

The options are compared following the Better Regulation Guidelines, in particular section 
2.6  of  Chapter  III,  ‘How  do  the  options  compare?’.  In  spite  of  all  efforts  to  monetise 
identified impacts, it was not possible to monetise all impacts in full due to methodological 
challenges  and  insufficient  quantitative  evidence.  Therefore,  in  order  not  to  make 
judgements  based  on  a  sub-set  of  impacts  (those  monetisable),  a  cost-benefit  analysis 
(CBA)  was  carried  out  and  integrated  in  a  MCA  where  the  monetisable  impacts  are 
complemented by and compared with intangible impacts to be able to make a fully-fledged 
comparison.  

The CBA provides a limited view of the net benefits of the measures / options as these are 
calculated  by  subtracting  the  monetisable  costs  (administrative  burdens,  substantive 
compliance  costs  and  enforcement  costs)  from  the  monetisable  benefits  (monetisable 
consumer  welfare  and  the  impact  on  climate  change),  disregarding  non-monetisable 
impacts. The (partial) CBA considered a social discount rate of 4%, as recommended by 
the Better Regulation Guidelines Toolbox (Tool#61)245. It was carried out for two periods: 
2025-2040 (15 years, as recommended by the BRG) and 2025-2050. The selection of a 
second period of analysis beyond the 15-year recommendation reflected that it takes more 
than 10 years for measures on lifespan and reparability to start to have an effect for some 
product categories. The downside of longer periods of analysis is the increased uncertainty 
in  respect  of  the  economic,  social,  technological  developments  that  can  influence  the 
impact  of  the  measure.  The  analysis  was  done  in  constant  prices,  at  2019  levels.  The 
limitations of the (partial) CBA analysis are significant  and are primarily related to  the 
limitations  of  the  monetising  the  costs  and  benefits.  There  is,  however,  one  additional 
limitation that is important to highlight – the fact that some of the identified benefits and 
costs may represent redistributions of welfare between agents of the economy. 

The MCA has three high-level assessment criteria (as required by the Better Regulation 
guidelines): Efficiency, Effectiveness, Coherence. Each of the identified impacts are a sub-
criterion of one of those three high-level criteria). The assessment of the options follows 
the  ‘non-linear/non-compensatory  approach’  described  in  Tool  #63.  In  the  efficiency 
criteria we incorporated the five impacts that were monetisable either as benefits or costs:  

 

 

as benefits, we incorporated the monetisable consumer welfare and the impact 
on climate change (which complement the intangible benefits included in the 
MCA - reduction of cross-border barriers and other environmental impacts). 
as costs, we incorporated the administrative burdens, substantive compliance 
costs and enforcement costs (which complemented the intangible costs included 
in the MCA - indirect costs and reduction of SME growth). 

245 As explained in the Tool#61 of the Better Regulation Guidelines:  ‘The social discount  rate  is used to 
compare costs and benefits that occur in different time periods from the point of  view of society. It is 
based on different arguments, one is the principle that people prefer to receive goods and services now 
rather than later, another one on the shadow costs of risk-free capital.’ ‘A social discount rate is used to 
convert all costs and benefits to "present values" so that they can be compared. This discount rate is a 
correction factor applied to costs and benefits expressed in constant prices.’ 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
This approach assigns weights to the criteria/sub-criteria. This is a subjective exercise and 
relies  on  judgements  on  the  relative  importance  of  each  criteria/sub-criterion.  That 
subjectivity is both an important limitation and an advantage of the MCA, as it allows other 
considerations to be incorporated in the assessment in a way that other approaches do not. 

A reasonable scenario was selected as default scenario in order to ensure coverage of all 
criteria and sub-criteria without giving significantly more weight to benefits than to costs. 
In the default scenario, 30 points are assigned to Effectiveness, 60 points to Efficiency and 
10 points to Coherence. The points are divided equally between the various subcriteria- of 
each criterion: 
 

each of the 6 sub-criteria in the effectiveness criterion was assigned 1/6 of its 30 
points; 
each of the 9 sub-criteria of the efficiency criterion was assigned 1/9 of its 60 
points; which means that overall benefits (4 of the 9 sub-criteria of efficiency) 
have less weight than costs (5 out of 9 sub-criteria of efficiency).  

 

As  assignment  of  criteria  is  subjective  and  there  is  some  overlap  between  some  of  the 
criteria  under  Effectiveness  and  Efficiency,  a  sensitivity  analysis  was  carried  out  for 
various possible weight combinations: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All three criteria (Effectiveness, Efficiency, Coherence) have the same weights 
(100/3), and the points are divided equally between the various sub-criteria of 
each criterion; 
Effectiveness has a weight of 45, Efficiency 45 and Coherence 10, and the 
points are divided equally between the various sub-criteria of each criterion; 
Effectiveness has a weight of 20, Efficiency 70 and Coherence 10, and the 
points are divided equally between the various sub-criteria of each criterion; 
Effectiveness has a weight of 10, Efficiency 80 and Coherence 10, and the 
points are divided equally between the various sub-criteria of each criterion; 
Effectiveness has a weight of 0, Efficiency 90 and Coherence 10, and the points 
are divided equally between the various sub-criteria of each criterion; 
Average of the weights assigned by five independent experts to each 
subcriterion-. This was done by asking each expert independently (through an 
online survey) to express their views on the relative importance of each criterion 
and sub-criterion. They were given 100 points to allocate between all three 
criteria and then had to distribute the points they had assigned to each criterion 
between its corresponding sub-criteria.  
Worst-case scenario, where Effectiveness has a weight of 0, Efficiency 100 and 
Coherence 0; 60% of the points allocated to efficiency are divided equally 
between the various sub-criteria related to costs and the remaining 40% are 
divided equally between the various sub-criteria related to benefits. 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.  Assessment table 

EFFECTIVENESS 

EFFICIENCY 

COHERENCE 

CRITERIA 

Specific objective 1. 

Enable informed 
purchasing 
decisions by 
consumers to 
foster 
sustainable 
consumption 

Specific objective 2. Eliminate untrustworthy 
practices that run against sustainable 
economy and mislead consumers away 
from sustainable consumption 

Specific objective 3. 
Ensure a better and 
coherent application 
of the EU legal 
framework thanks to 
clearer and more 
enforceable rules 

Benefits 

Costs 

SUB-CRITERIA/    
IMPACTS 

Quality of 
consumer 
decision 
making 

Circularity 
and 
sustainable 
consumption 

Consumer 
protection 

Consumer 
trust in the 
market 

Level 
playing field 

Application of the EU 
legal consumer 
framework 

Monetisable 
consumer welfare 

Barriers to 
cross-
border trade 

Climate 
change 

Other 
environment
al impacts 

Administrati
ve burden 

Substantive 
compliance 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

SME growth 

Costs to 
public bodies 

STAKEHOLDER 
DIRECTLY 
AFFECTED 

Consumers 

Society 

Consumers  Consumers  Businesses 

Society 

Consumers 

Businesses 

Society 

Society 

Businesses  Businesses  Businesses  Businesses  Public bodies 

Unit 

0  10 

0  10 

0  10 

0  10 

0  10 

0  10 

0  10 

0  10 

Euros 

0  10 

Euros 

Euros 

0  10 

0  10 

Euros 

0  10 

208 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 

Presentation of the results per sub-problems 

2.1. 

Sub-problem 1.2: Lack of reliable information about product’s lifespan 

Three options were selected for analysis: 
Option 1.2.A: Obligation to inform consumers about the expected lifespan of goods 
Option 1.2.B: Obligation to inform consumers of the existence (or absence) of a producer’s commercial guarantee for durability 
Option 1.2.C: Option 1.2.B + Obligation to inform consumers on the period of time during which free software updates will be provided 

The table below summarises the assessment of the baseline and of each option against each assessment criterion (the assessment of their impacts is described 
in detail in Annex 8). 

The overall comparison of the options using a multi-criteria analysis shows that in the default scenario where Effectiveness has a weight of 30 points, 
Efficiency 60 points and Coherence 10 points, the ranking of options with the highest score is the following: first Option C (Option 1.2.C), followed by 
Option B (Option 1.2.B), followed by Baseline and then by Option A (Option 1.2.A). 

The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the ranking of options with the highest score remains unchanged in all 8 scenarios of weights tested. The 
final scores for each scenario and for all possible option rankings are presented below. 

Results of the sensitivity analysis for the options for Sub-Problem 1.2 

Ranki
ng of 
optio
ns 

Default: 
Effectiveness 
30%, Efficiency 
60% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
1/3, Efficiency 
1/3 and 
Coherence 1/3 

Effectiveness 
45%, Efficiency 
45% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
20%, Efficiency 
70% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
10%, Efficiency 
80% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
0%, Efficiency 
90% and 
Coherence 10% 

Experts 

Worst-case 
scenario: 
Efficiency 100% 
(of which 60% 
allocated to 
costs and 40% to 
benefits) 

0ABC 

A0BC 

92 

67 

143 

93 

88 

55 

97 

82 

100 

90 

102 

70 

84 

80 

94 

74 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B0AC 

0BAC 

AB0C 

BA0C 

CA0B 

AC0B 

0CAB 

C0AB 

A0CB 

0ACB 

0BCA 

B0CA 

C0BA 

0CBA 

BC0A 

CB0A 

CBA0 

BCA0 

ACB0 

CAB0 

BAC0 

ABC0 

205 

172 

100 

180 

207 

127 

198 

232 

93 

118 

252 

285 

312 

278 

318 

345 

320 

293 

160 

240 

213 

133 

239 

231 

100 

189 

215 

126 

257 

265 

119 

169 

320 

328 

354 

346 

335 

361 

311 

285 

133 

222 

196 

107 

218 

173 

100 

185 

220 

135 

208 

253 

90 

123 

258 

303 

338 

293 

348 

383 

350 

315 

180 

265 

230 

145 

180 

170 

100 

170 

180 

110 

180 

190 

100 

110 

240 

250 

260 

250 

260 

270 

260 

250 

120 

190 

180 

110 

232 

195 

108 

200 

227 

135 

222 

260 

97 

130 

287 

325 

352 

314 

362 

390 

357 

330 

173 

265 

238 

146 

164 

148 

96 

160 

168 

104 

156 

172 

88 

92 

212 

228 

236 

220 

244 

252 

248 

240 

120 

184 

176 

112 

188 

171 

100 

173 

189 

116 

186 

204 

98 

113 

244 

262 

277 

259 

279 

295 

280 

264 

133 

207 

191 

118 

197 

171 

100 

177 

198 

121 

192 

218 

96 

116 

248 

273 

294 

269 

299 

320 

300 

279 

147 

223 

202 

126 

210 

 
 
 
When comparing monetisable costs and benefits using the Cost-Benefit analysis approach described in Annex 9.1 above, option 1.2.C is the option that 
brings the highest net benefits for the society as a whole.  

Problem 1.2.: CBA of the various options (present value (@4%) at prices of 2019, millions of euros)  

Average  ± One Standard deviation 

Option 1.2.A 

Option 1.2.B 

Option 1.2.C 

2025 - 2040 

2025 - 2050 

-2 273 ± 213 

1 129 ± 447 

1 865 ± 745 

-2 705 ± 325 

2 210 ± 839 

3244 ± 1156 

2.2. 

Sub-problem 1.3: Lack of reliable information about product’s reparability 

Five options were selected for further analysis: 
- Option 1.3.A: Provision of updated, user-friendly repair and user manuals 
- Option 1.3.B: Provision of information about how long and which spare parts are available 
- Option 1.3.C: Provision of information on availability of repair services 
- Option 1.3.D: Reparability Scoring Index 
- Option 1.3.E: Provision of Repair Scoring Index, or other relevant repair information on a where applicable/available basis 

The table below summarises the assessment of the baseline and of each option against each assessment criterion (the assessment of their impacts is described 
in detail in Annex 8). 

The comparison of the options using a multi-criteria analysis shows that in the default scenario where Effectiveness has a weight of 30 points, Efficiency 
60 points and Coherence 10 points: 
- Option E (1.3.E) ranks higher than Option B (1.3.B), which is followed by the baseline, which ranks higher than Option D (1.3.D), which ranks higher 
than Option A (1.3.A), which ranks higher than Option C (1.3.C). 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the above ranking of options remains unchanged for half of the scenarios of weights tested. When Efficiency 
has a higher weight, the ranking of options changes slightly, in that Option E and Option B jointly rank highest.  
The final scores for each scenario and for all possible option ranking can be found in the table below. 

Results of the sensitivity analysis for the options for Sub-Problem 1.3 

Ranking 

0ABCDE 
A0BCDE 
B0ACDE 
0BACDE 
AB0CDE 
BA0CDE 
BAC0DE 
ABC0DE 
CBA0DE 
BCA0DE 
ACB0DE 
CAB0DE 
C0BADE 
0CBADE 
BC0ADE 
CB0ADE 
0BCADE 
B0CADE 

Default: 
Effectiveness 
30%, Efficiency 
60% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
1/3, Efficiency 
1/3 and 
Coherence 1/3 

Effectiveness 
45%, Efficiency 
45% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
20%, Efficiency 
70% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
10%, Efficiency 
80% and 
Coherence 10% 

Effectiveness 
0%, Efficiency 
90% and 
Coherence 10% 

Experts 

Worst-case 
scenario: 
Efficiency 100% 
(of which 60% 
allocated to 
costs and 40% 
to benefits) 

123 
152 
157 
122 
133 
127 
150 
152 
103 
162 
167 
110 
98 
113 
157 
115 
138 
148 

85 
109 
115 
87 
96 
93 
111 
109 
74 
120 
126 
78 
69 
85 
115 
83 
102 
113 

115 
148 
155 
118 
130 
125 
150 
148 
100 
163 
170 
105 
93 
115 
155 
113 
138 
153 

129 
154 
158 
124 
136 
128 
150 
154 
106 
161 
164 
113 
102 
112 
158 
117 
139 
146 

212 

134 
157 
159 
127 
138 
129 
150 
157 
108 
161 
162 
117 
106 
111 
159 
118 
139 
143 

140 
160 
160 
130 
140 
130 
150 
160 
110 
160 
160 
120 
110 
110 
160 
120 
140 
140 

119 
154 
159 
118 
131 
124 
149 
150 
103 
162 
168 
110 
97 
104 
156 
116 
134 
145 

154 
172 
172 
142 
152 
140 
160 
172 
118 
172 
172 
130 
120 
124 
174 
132 
156 
154 

 
 
 
 
A0CBDE 
0ACBDE 
CA0BDE 
AC0BDE 
0CABDE 
C0ABDE 
D0ABCE 
0DABCE 
AD0BCE 
DA0BCE 
0ADBCE 
A0DBCE 
A0BDCE 
0ABDCE 
BA0DCE 
AB0DCE 
0BADCE 
B0ADCE 
BDA0CE 
DBA0CE 
ABD0CE 
BAD0CE 
DAB0CE 
ADB0CE 
0DBACE 
D0BACE 
B0DACE 
0BDACE 
DB0ACE 

150 
145 
117 
163 
122 
107 
133 
132 
155 
143 
132 
155 
138 
110 
125 
132 
102 
137 
148 
113 
138 
130 
125 
142 
125 
132 
165 
143 
143 

111 
106 
81 
119 
87 
70 
96 
98 
117 
107 
98 
117 
102 
78 
94 
98 
76 
104 
113 
85 
102 
100 
94 
109 
94 
98 
128 
107 
107 

150 
143 
110 
160 
118 
95 
130 
133 
158 
145 
133 
158 
138 
105 
128 
133 
103 
140 
153 
115 
138 
135 
128 
148 
128 
133 
173 
145 
145 

150 
148 
126 
168 
127 
122 
138 
131 
152 
141 
131 
152 
139 
117 
122 
131 
101 
132 
143 
111 
139 
123 
122 
134 
122 
131 
155 
141 
141 

150 
147 
121 
166 
124 
114 
136 
131 
153 
142 
131 
153 
139 
113 
123 
131 
101 
134 
146 
112 
139 
127 
123 
138 
123 
131 
160 
142 
142 

213 

150 
150 
130 
170 
130 
130 
140 
130 
150 
140 
130 
150 
140 
120 
120 
130 
100 
130 
140 
110 
140 
120 
120 
130 
120 
130 
150 
140 
140 

144 
138 
115 
161 
110 
103 
136 
124 
155 
146 
125 
153 
142 
107 
130 
137 
102 
143 
141 
111 
131 
125 
123 
136 
118 
135 
164 
135 
146 

164 
166 
142 
184 
146 
142 
150 
142 
164 
148 
144 
160 
150 
132 
126 
138 
110 
140 
152 
116 
154 
132 
128 
142 
130 
138 
160 
154 
148 

 
 
BD0ACE 
CD0ABE 
DC0ABE 
0CDABE 
C0DABE 
D0CABE 
0DCABE 
0DACBE 
D0ACBE 
A0DCBE 
0ADCBE 
DA0CBE 
AD0CBE 
AC0DBE 
CA0DBE 
0ACDBE 
A0CDBE 
C0ADBE 
0CADBE 
DCA0BE 
CDA0BE 
ADC0BE 
DAC0BE 
CAD0BE 
ACD0BE 
BCD0AE 
CBD0AE 
DBC0AE 
BDC0AE 

162 
90 
107 
105 
100 
117 
105 
138 
140 
133 
110 
127 
138 
152 
105 
123 
128 
100 
115 
117 
100 
128 
140 
105 
147 
140 
105 
128 
128 

120 
56 
70 
72 
67 
81 
72 
102 
100 
96 
78 
93 
102 
109 
72 
85 
91 
67 
83 
81 
67 
91 
100 
72 
104 
100 
72 
91 
91 

163 
75 
95 
98 
90 
110 
98 
138 
135 
130 
105 
125 
138 
148 
98 
115 
123 
90 
113 
110 
90 
123 
135 
98 
140 
135 
98 
123 
123 

161 
110 
122 
115 
113 
126 
115 
139 
147 
138 
117 
129 
139 
157 
115 
134 
136 
113 
118 
126 
113 
136 
147 
115 
156 
147 
115 
136 
136 

161 
100 
114 
110 
107 
121 
110 
139 
143 
136 
113 
128 
139 
154 
110 
129 
132 
107 
117 
121 
107 
132 
143 
110 
151 
143 
110 
132 
132 

214 

160 
120 
130 
120 
120 
130 
120 
140 
150 
140 
120 
130 
140 
160 
120 
140 
140 
120 
120 
130 
120 
140 
150 
120 
160 
150 
120 
140 
140 

160 
91 
115 
96 
98 
117 
106 
133 
145 
140 
112 
126 
136 
150 
104 
119 
125 
98 
105 
127 
101 
134 
143 
106 
150 
145 
106 
133 
134 

174 
130 
136 
132 
128 
140 
130 
152 
160 
148 
132 
138 
154 
170 
128 
152 
150 
130 
134 
136 
128 
150 
158 
132 
172 
162 
132 
148 
150 

 
 
CDB0AE 
DCB0AE 
DC0BAE 
CD0BAE 
0DCBAE 
D0CBAE 
C0DBAE 
0CDBAE 
0BDCAE 
B0DCAE 
D0BCAE 
0DBCAE 
BD0CAE 
DB0CAE 
CB0DAE 
BC0DAE 
0CBDAE 
C0BDAE 
B0CDAE 
0BCDAE 
ABCD0E 
BACD0E 
CABD0E 
ACBD0E 
BCAD0E 
CBAD0E 
CBDA0E 
BCDA0E 
DCBA0E 

93 
115 
98 
82 
97 
108 
87 
92 
110 
132 
133 
127 
138 
120 
108 
150 
120 
105 
132 
122 
147 
145 
112 
168 
162 
103 
122 
157 
115 

63 
83 
69 
54 
70 
80 
59 
65 
78 
98 
96 
93 
102 
89 
80 
111 
89 
72 
98 
87 
104 
106 
76 
124 
120 
74 
87 
115 
83 

85 
113 
93 
73 
95 
108 
80 
88 
105 
133 
130 
125 
138 
120 
108 
150 
120 
98 
133 
118 
140 
143 
103 
168 
163 
100 
118 
155 
113 

104 
118 
106 
94 
99 
109 
96 
97 
117 
131 
138 
129 
139 
120 
109 
150 
120 
115 
131 
127 
156 
148 
124 
169 
161 
108 
127 
159 
118 

99 
117 
102 
88 
98 
109 
91 
94 
113 
131 
136 
128 
139 
120 
109 
150 
120 
110 
131 
124 
151 
147 
118 
169 
161 
106 
124 
158 
117 

215 

110 
120 
110 
100 
100 
110 
100 
100 
120 
130 
140 
130 
140 
120 
110 
150 
120 
120 
130 
130 
160 
150 
130 
170 
160 
110 
130 
160 
120 

97 
129 
110 
86 
100 
111 
87 
85 
112 
141 
141 
123 
136 
122 
111 
151 
111 
104 
132 
121 
149 
148 
110 
169 
164 
105 
120 
159 
126 

118 
126 
114 
108 
108 
118 
106 
110 
132 
138 
150 
142 
154 
128 
118 
160 
134 
130 
140 
142 
174 
162 
144 
186 
176 
122 
142 
172 
126 

 
 
CDBA0E 
BDCA0E 
DBCA0E 
DACB0E 
ADCB0E 
CDAB0E 
DCAB0E 
ACDB0E 
CADB0E 
BADC0E 
ABDC0E 
DBAC0E 
BDAC0E 
ADBC0E 
DABC0E 
DABCE0 
ADBCE0 
BDACE0 
DBACE0 
ABDCE0 
BADCE0 
BACDE0 
ABCDE0 
CBADE0 
BCADE0 
ACBDE0 
CABDE0 
CDBAE0 
DCBAE0 

93 
145 
145 
155 
143 
105 
122 
157 
115 
127 
135 
133 
168 
157 
140 
175 
192 
203 
168 
170 
162 
182 
183 
140 
198 
205 
148 
118 
140 

63 
106 
106 
117 
107 
72 
87 
115 
83 
93 
94 
96 
124 
115 
100 
161 
176 
185 
157 
156 
154 
165 
163 
133 
180 
183 
135 
113 
133 

85 
143 
143 
158 
145 
98 
118 
155 
113 
125 
128 
130 
168 
155 
135 
183 
203 
215 
178 
175 
173 
188 
185 
145 
208 
213 
148 
118 
145 

104 
148 
148 
152 
141 
115 
127 
159 
118 
129 
145 
138 
169 
159 
147 
165 
177 
188 
156 
163 
147 
174 
181 
133 
186 
195 
149 
119 
133 

99 
147 
147 
153 
142 
110 
124 
158 
117 
128 
140 
136 
169 
158 
143 
170 
184 
196 
162 
167 
154 
178 
182 
137 
192 
200 
149 
119 
137 

216 

110 
150 
150 
150 
140 
120 
130 
160 
120 
130 
150 
140 
170 
160 
150 
160 
170 
180 
150 
160 
140 
170 
180 
130 
180 
190 
150 
120 
130 

94 
151 
149 
161 
152 
107 
133 
159 
116 
133 
139 
136 
166 
156 
143 
177 
191 
201 
171 
173 
167 
184 
185 
140 
200 
204 
146 
121 
153 

118 
162 
160 
160 
152 
130 
138 
172 
132 
140 
162 
148 
184 
174 
160 
158 
172 
182 
146 
160 
138 
170 
182 
130 
184 
194 
152 
116 
124 

 
 
BCDAE0 
CBDAE0 
DBCAE0 
BDCAE0 
ADCBE0 
DACBE0 
CADBE0 
ACDBE0 
DCABE0 
CDABE0 
EDABC0 
DEABC0 
AEDBC0 
EADBC0 
DAEBC0 
ADEBC0 
ADBEC0 
DABEC0 
BADEC0 
ABDEC0 
DBAEC0 
BDAEC0 
BEADC0 
EBADC0 
ABEDC0 
BAEDC0 
EABDC0 
AEBDC0 
DEBAC0 

182 
147 
170 
170 
170 
182 
142 
183 
148 
132 
193 
195 
182 
217 
193 
217 
167 
150 
165 
173 
137 
172 
188 
187 
160 
152 
195 
188 
193 

165 
137 
156 
156 
156 
165 
131 
163 
135 
120 
174 
172 
165 
193 
174 
193 
148 
133 
150 
152 
126 
154 
169 
170 
144 
143 
172 
169 
174 

188 
150 
175 
175 
175 
188 
143 
185 
148 
128 
200 
198 
188 
225 
200 
225 
165 
145 
168 
170 
135 
173 
193 
195 
160 
158 
198 
193 
200 

174 
142 
163 
163 
163 
174 
141 
181 
149 
137 
184 
192 
174 
206 
184 
206 
169 
157 
162 
178 
139 
171 
183 
176 
160 
144 
192 
183 
184 

178 
144 
167 
167 
167 
178 
141 
182 
149 
134 
189 
193 
178 
211 
189 
211 
168 
153 
163 
176 
138 
171 
186 
181 
160 
148 
193 
186 
189 

217 

170 
140 
160 
160 
160 
170 
140 
180 
150 
140 
180 
190 
170 
200 
180 
200 
170 
160 
160 
180 
140 
170 
180 
170 
160 
140 
190 
180 
180 

186 
147 
176 
178 
178 
186 
142 
185 
159 
133 
205 
205 
195 
224 
206 
224 
170 
157 
169 
175 
146 
176 
202 
201 
178 
172 
206 
202 
204 

170 
140 
158 
160 
160 
168 
140 
180 
146 
138 
182 
192 
170 
206 
180 
206 
172 
158 
162 
184 
136 
172 
182 
172 
158 
136 
194 
182 
180 

 
 
EDBAC0 
BDEAC0 
DBEAC0 
EBDAC0 
BEDAC0 
CEDAB0 
ECDAB0 
DCEAB0 
CDEAB0 
EDCAB0 
DECAB0 
DEACB0 
EDACB0 
ADECB0 
DAECB0 
EADCB0 
AEDCB0 
ACDEB0 
CADEB0 
DACEB0 
ADCEB0 
CDAEB0 
DCAEB0 
ECADB0 
CEADB0 
AECDB0 
EACDB0 
CAEDB0 
ACEDB0 

187 
223 
195 
228 
193 
145 
172 
175 
160 
175 
160 
210 
208 
182 
158 
203 
168 
217 
175 
208 
197 
158 
175 
182 
168 
160 
217 
140 
197 

170 
196 
172 
202 
174 
139 
154 
161 
144 
161 
144 
189 
191 
165 
146 
185 
157 
193 
161 
191 
181 
146 
161 
165 
157 
144 
193 
133 
181 

195 
230 
198 
238 
200 
153 
173 
183 
160 
183 
160 
220 
223 
188 
163 
215 
178 
225 
183 
223 
210 
163 
183 
188 
178 
160 
225 
145 
210 

176 
214 
192 
216 
184 
135 
171 
165 
160 
165 
160 
197 
189 
174 
153 
188 
156 
206 
165 
189 
179 
153 
165 
174 
156 
160 
206 
133 
179 

181 
219 
193 
222 
189 
140 
171 
170 
160 
170 
160 
203 
199 
178 
156 
196 
162 
211 
170 
199 
188 
156 
170 
178 
162 
160 
211 
137 
188 

218 

170 
210 
190 
210 
180 
130 
170 
160 
160 
160 
160 
190 
180 
170 
150 
180 
150 
200 
160 
180 
170 
150 
160 
170 
150 
160 
200 
130 
170 

199 
229 
205 
234 
206 
156 
179 
192 
169 
195 
169 
223 
223 
188 
170 
220 
191 
227 
184 
220 
211 
170 
196 
188 
175 
169 
227 
155 
209 

170 
216 
190 
216 
180 
128 
172 
158 
162 
160 
160 
192 
182 
174 
148 
184 
148 
204 
164 
180 
172 
150 
158 
174 
152 
160 
204 
128 
170 

 
 
BCEDA0 
CBEDA0 
EBCDA0 
BECDA0 
CEBDA0 
ECBDA0 
ECDBA0 
CEDBA0 
DECBA0 
EDCBA0 
CDEBA0 
DCEBA0 
DBECA0 
BDECA0 
EDBCA0 
DEBCA0 
BEDCA0 
EBDCA0 
CBDEA0 
BCDEA0 
DCBEA0 
CDBEA0 
BDCEA0 
DBCEA0 
ABCED0 
BACED0 
CABED0 
ACBED0 
BCAED0 

197 
147 
217 
167 
175 
188 
160 
133 
153 
168 
153 
168 
155 
183 
198 
205 
170 
205 
177 
212 
177 
155 
198 
198 
187 
185 
137 
193 
187 

181 
137 
193 
148 
161 
169 
144 
130 
141 
157 
141 
157 
139 
163 
180 
183 
156 
183 
159 
187 
159 
139 
180 
180 
170 
172 
126 
174 
170 

210 
150 
225 
165 
183 
193 
160 
140 
155 
178 
155 
178 
153 
185 
208 
213 
175 
213 
180 
218 
180 
153 
208 
208 
195 
198 
135 
200 
195 

179 
142 
206 
169 
165 
183 
160 
124 
151 
156 
151 
156 
158 
181 
186 
195 
163 
195 
172 
204 
172 
158 
186 
186 
176 
168 
139 
184 
176 

188 
144 
211 
168 
170 
186 
160 
129 
152 
162 
152 
162 
157 
182 
192 
200 
167 
200 
174 
208 
174 
157 
192 
192 
181 
177 
138 
189 
181 

219 

170 
140 
200 
170 
160 
180 
160 
120 
150 
150 
150 
150 
160 
180 
180 
190 
160 
190 
170 
200 
170 
160 
180 
180 
170 
160 
140 
180 
170 

209 
159 
227 
173 
179 
193 
167 
144 
162 
189 
162 
185 
163 
187 
212 
217 
190 
218 
182 
221 
195 
163 
209 
208 
199 
198 
150 
208 
203 

170 
138 
204 
170 
162 
184 
160 
116 
148 
148 
150 
146 
158 
184 
182 
192 
158 
194 
174 
204 
168 
160 
182 
180 
172 
160 
140 
182 
172 

 
 
CBAED0 
CBEAD0 
BCEAD0 
ECBAD0 
CEBAD0 
BECAD0 
EBCAD0 
EACBD0 
AECBD0 
CEABD0 
ECABD0 
ACEBD0 
CAEBD0 
BAECD0 
ABECD0 
EBACD0 
BEACD0 
AEBCD0 
EABCD0 
EAB0DC 
AEB0DC 
BEA0DC 
EBA0DC 
ABE0DC 
BAE0DC 
BA0EDC 
AB0EDC 
0BAEDC 
B0AEDC 

128 
165 
215 
170 
157 
172 
222 
228 
172 
165 
178 
222 
165 
148 
157 
205 
207 
200 
207 
205 
198 
200 
198 
172 
163 
175 
182 
140 
175 

124 
150 
194 
156 
148 
154 
198 
202 
154 
150 
157 
198 
150 
135 
137 
183 
181 
178 
181 
183 
180 
178 
180 
154 
152 
161 
165 
133 
161 

133 
168 
228 
175 
165 
173 
233 
238 
173 
168 
178 
233 
168 
148 
150 
213 
210 
205 
210 
213 
208 
205 
208 
173 
170 
183 
188 
145 
183 

123 
162 
198 
163 
146 
171 
207 
216 
171 
162 
179 
207 
162 
149 
166 
195 
202 
193 
202 
195 
186 
193 
186 
171 
154 
165 
174 
133 
165 

126 
163 
207 
167 
151 
171 
214 
222 
171 
163 
179 
214 
163 
149 
161 
200 
204 
197 
204 
200 
192 
197 
192 
171 
159 
170 
178 
137 
170 

220 

120 
160 
190 
160 
140 
170 
200 
210 
170 
160 
180 
200 
160 
150 
170 
190 
200 
190 
200 
190 
180 
190 
180 
170 
150 
160 
170 
130 
160 

144 
174 
223 
177 
164 
178 
232 
236 
178 
169 
183 
227 
174 
158 
164 
216 
217 
213 
217 
218 
213 
212 
211 
176 
170 
193 
200 
154 
195 

118 
164 
196 
164 
142 
174 
208 
218 
174 
164 
186 
206 
164 
150 
172 
194 
204 
194 
206 
194 
182 
192 
182 
170 
148 
160 
172 
130 
160 

 
 
A0BEDC 
0ABEDC 
0EBADC 
E0BADC 
B0EADC 
0BEADC 
EB0ADC 
BE0ADC 
AE0BDC 
EA0BDC 
0AEBDC 
A0EBDC 
E0ABDC 
0EABDC 
DEAB0C 
EDAB0C 
ADEB0C 
DAEB0C 
EADB0C 
AEDB0C 
AEBD0C 
EABD0C 
BAED0C 
ABED0C 
EBAD0C 
BEAD0C 
BDAE0C 
DBAE0C 
ABDE0C 

177 
148 
175 
175 
210 
177 
210 
177 
177 
212 
177 
212 
183 
183 
193 
192 
215 
192 
215 
180 
205 
212 
168 
177 
203 
205 
187 
152 
188 

159 
135 
161 
161 
189 
159 
189 
159 
159 
187 
159 
187 
163 
163 
174 
176 
194 
176 
194 
167 
183 
187 
157 
159 
185 
183 
170 
143 
169 

180 
148 
183 
183 
220 
180 
220 
180 
180 
218 
180 
218 
185 
185 
200 
203 
228 
203 
228 
190 
213 
218 
178 
180 
215 
213 
195 
158 
193 

172 
149 
165 
165 
197 
172 
197 
172 
172 
204 
172 
204 
181 
181 
184 
177 
198 
177 
198 
167 
195 
204 
156 
172 
188 
195 
176 
144 
183 

174 
149 
170 
170 
203 
174 
203 
174 
174 
208 
174 
208 
182 
182 
189 
184 
207 
184 
207 
173 
200 
208 
162 
174 
196 
200 
181 
148 
186 

221 

170 
150 
160 
160 
190 
170 
190 
170 
170 
200 
170 
200 
180 
180 
180 
170 
190 
170 
190 
160 
190 
200 
150 
170 
180 
190 
170 
140 
180 

194 
160 
183 
181 
224 
184 
224 
182 
182 
223 
184 
223 
186 
188 
198 
199 
217 
200 
217 
189 
208 
212 
178 
183 
206 
208 
181 
151 
180 

170 
152 
166 
162 
196 
176 
196 
172 
172 
206 
176 
206 
184 
188 
184 
174 
198 
172 
198 
162 
198 
210 
152 
174 
188 
198 
174 
138 
186 

 
 
BADE0C 
DABE0C 
ADBE0C 
EDBA0C 
DEBA0C 
BEDA0C 
EBDA0C 
DBEA0C 
BDEA0C 
0DEABC 
D0EABC 
E0DABC 
0EDABC 
DE0ABC 
ED0ABC 
EDA0BC 
DEA0BC 
AED0BC 
EAD0BC 
DAE0BC 
ADE0BC 
A0EDBC 
0AEDBC 
EA0DBC 
AE0DBC 
0EADBC 
E0ADBC 
D0AEBC 
0DAEBC 

180 
165 
182 
180 
187 
187 
222 
188 
217 
200 
207 
205 
182 
183 
200 
210 
212 
193 
228 
182 
205 
205 
170 
228 
193 
205 
205 
200 
198 

167 
150 
165 
167 
170 
170 
198 
169 
193 
178 
181 
183 
165 
163 
178 
189 
187 
174 
202 
165 
183 
183 
156 
202 
174 
183 
183 
178 
180 

190 
168 
188 
190 
195 
195 
233 
193 
225 
205 
210 
213 
188 
185 
205 
220 
218 
200 
238 
188 
213 
213 
175 
238 
200 
213 
213 
205 
208 

167 
162 
174 
167 
176 
176 
207 
183 
206 
193 
202 
195 
174 
181 
193 
197 
204 
184 
216 
174 
195 
195 
163 
216 
184 
195 
195 
193 
186 

173 
163 
178 
173 
181 
181 
214 
186 
211 
197 
204 
200 
178 
182 
197 
203 
208 
189 
222 
178 
200 
200 
167 
222 
189 
200 
200 
197 
192 

222 

160 
160 
170 
160 
170 
170 
200 
180 
200 
190 
200 
190 
170 
180 
190 
190 
200 
180 
210 
170 
190 
190 
160 
210 
180 
190 
190 
190 
180 

174 
162 
175 
186 
192 
193 
222 
193 
216 
200 
217 
203 
187 
185 
212 
222 
221 
208 
236 
186 
204 
216 
177 
234 
193 
206 
204 
213 
201 

164 
160 
174 
162 
172 
172 
208 
182 
208 
198 
206 
194 
176 
182 
196 
194 
204 
184 
220 
170 
196 
194 
164 
216 
182 
200 
196 
194 
186 

 
 
AD0EBC 
DA0EBC 
0ADEBC 
A0DEBC 
B0DEAC 
0BDEAC 
DB0EAC 
BD0EAC 
0DBEAC 
D0BEAC 
D0EBAC 
0DEBAC 
ED0BAC 
DE0BAC 
0EDBAC 
E0DBAC 
EBD0AC 
BED0AC 
DEB0AC 
EDB0AC 
BDE0AC 
DBE0AC 
0BEDAC 
B0EDAC 
E0BDAC 
0EBDAC 
BE0DAC 
EB0DAC 
AB0DEC 

228 
217 
205 
228 
233 
212 
217 
235 
200 
207 
205 
198 
198 
182 
175 
198 
235 
200 
217 
210 
212 
183 
182 
215 
217 
217 
205 
238 
183 

202 
193 
183 
202 
207 
187 
193 
206 
178 
181 
183 
180 
180 
165 
161 
180 
206 
178 
193 
189 
187 
163 
165 
194 
193 
193 
183 
213 
163 

238 
225 
213 
238 
245 
218 
225 
243 
205 
210 
213 
208 
208 
188 
183 
208 
243 
205 
225 
220 
218 
185 
188 
228 
225 
225 
213 
253 
185 

216 
206 
195 
216 
218 
204 
206 
225 
193 
202 
195 
186 
186 
174 
165 
186 
225 
193 
206 
197 
204 
181 
174 
198 
206 
206 
195 
219 
181 

222 
211 
200 
222 
226 
208 
211 
230 
197 
204 
200 
192 
192 
178 
170 
192 
230 
197 
211 
203 
208 
182 
178 
207 
211 
211 
200 
229 
182 

223 

210 
200 
190 
210 
210 
200 
200 
220 
190 
200 
190 
180 
180 
170 
160 
180 
220 
190 
200 
190 
200 
180 
170 
190 
200 
200 
190 
210 
180 

236 
227 
206 
234 
240 
210 
227 
241 
200 
217 
216 
199 
211 
184 
181 
197 
241 
212 
227 
222 
208 
185 
187 
228 
214 
216 
203 
246 
186 

220 
204 
200 
216 
216 
210 
204 
230 
196 
204 
194 
186 
184 
170 
164 
182 
230 
194 
204 
194 
206 
180 
174 
194 
206 
210 
192 
216 
184 

 
 
BA0DEC 
0ABDEC 
A0BDEC 
B0ADEC 
0BADEC 
0BDAEC 
B0DAEC 
D0BAEC 
0DBAEC 
BD0AEC 
DB0AEC 
DA0BEC 
AD0BEC 
0DABEC 
D0ABEC 
A0DBEC 
0ADBEC 
BAD0EC 
ABD0EC 
DBA0EC 
BDA0EC 
ADB0EC 
DAB0EC 
DAC0EB 
ADC0EB 
CDA0EB 
DCA0EB 
ACD0EB 
CAD0EB 

177 
162 
190 
188 
153 
160 
182 
148 
142 
178 
160 
167 
178 
155 
157 
178 
155 
177 
185 
160 
195 
188 
172 
200 
188 
160 
177 
207 
165 

159 
143 
167 
169 
141 
144 
165 
135 
131 
157 
144 
148 
157 
139 
137 
157 
139 
159 
161 
144 
172 
169 
154 
178 
169 
144 
159 
181 
150 

180 
158 
190 
193 
155 
160 
188 
148 
143 
178 
160 
165 
178 
153 
150 
178 
153 
180 
183 
160 
198 
193 
173 
205 
193 
160 
180 
210 
168 

172 
167 
190 
183 
151 
160 
174 
149 
141 
179 
160 
169 
179 
158 
166 
179 
158 
172 
188 
160 
192 
183 
171 
193 
183 
160 
172 
202 
162 

174 
164 
190 
186 
152 
160 
178 
149 
141 
179 
160 
168 
179 
157 
161 
179 
157 
174 
187 
160 
193 
186 
171 
197 
186 
160 
174 
204 
163 

224 

170 
170 
190 
180 
150 
160 
170 
150 
140 
180 
160 
170 
180 
160 
170 
180 
160 
170 
190 
160 
190 
180 
170 
190 
180 
160 
170 
200 
160 

179 
157 
191 
192 
151 
158 
187 
158 
141 
183 
169 
173 
183 
152 
164 
180 
152 
181 
187 
167 
197 
192 
179 
213 
204 
171 
197 
219 
176 

172 
178 
196 
186 
156 
166 
172 
150 
142 
186 
160 
170 
186 
164 
172 
182 
166 
176 
198 
160 
196 
186 
172 
194 
186 
164 
172 
208 
168 

 
 
CA0DEB 
AC0DEB 
0CADEB 
C0ADEB 
A0CDEB 
0ACDEB 
0DCAEB 
D0CAEB 
C0DAEB 
0CDAEB 
DC0AEB 
CD0AEB 
AD0CEB 
DA0CEB 
0ADCEB 
A0DCEB 
D0ACEB 
0DACEB 
EDAC0B 
DEAC0B 
AEDC0B 
EADC0B 
DAEC0B 
ADEC0B 
ADCE0B 
DACE0B 
CADE0B 
ACDE0B 
DCAE0B 

165 
212 
175 
160 
188 
183 
158 
170 
153 
158 
160 
143 
192 
180 
163 
187 
193 
192 
193 
195 
153 
188 
143 
167 
163 
175 
142 
183 
142 

150 
187 
161 
144 
169 
163 
146 
156 
141 
146 
144 
130 
176 
167 
152 
170 
174 
176 
174 
172 
141 
169 
130 
148 
152 
161 
131 
163 
131 

168 
218 
183 
160 
193 
185 
163 
175 
155 
163 
160 
140 
203 
190 
170 
195 
200 
203 
200 
198 
155 
193 
140 
165 
170 
183 
143 
185 
143 

162 
204 
165 
160 
183 
181 
153 
163 
151 
153 
160 
148 
177 
167 
154 
176 
184 
177 
184 
192 
151 
183 
148 
169 
154 
165 
141 
181 
141 

163 
208 
170 
160 
186 
182 
156 
167 
152 
156 
160 
146 
184 
173 
159 
181 
189 
184 
189 
193 
152 
186 
146 
168 
159 
170 
141 
182 
141 

225 

160 
200 
160 
160 
180 
180 
150 
160 
150 
150 
160 
150 
170 
160 
150 
170 
180 
170 
180 
190 
150 
180 
150 
170 
150 
160 
140 
180 
140 

174 
220 
175 
168 
195 
189 
171 
182 
163 
162 
181 
157 
196 
187 
173 
201 
206 
194 
208 
207 
175 
204 
155 
173 
171 
179 
144 
187 
156 

164 
206 
170 
166 
186 
188 
154 
164 
152 
156 
160 
154 
178 
162 
156 
172 
184 
176 
184 
194 
150 
186 
150 
176 
152 
160 
144 
184 
138 

 
 
CDAE0B 
CEAD0B 
ECAD0B 
ACED0B 
CAED0B 
EACD0B 
AECD0B 
DECA0B 
EDCA0B 
CDEA0B 
DCEA0B 
ECDA0B 
CEDA0B 
0EDACB 
E0DACB 
D0EACB 
0DEACB 
ED0ACB 
DE0ACB 
DEA0CB 
EDA0CB 
ADE0CB 
DAE0CB 
EAD0CB 
AED0CB 
A0DECB 
0ADECB 
DA0ECB 
AD0ECB 

125 
158 
172 
187 
130 
207 
150 
155 
170 
155 
170 
167 
140 
175 
198 
200 
193 
193 
177 
182 
180 
175 
152 
198 
163 
172 
148 
160 
172 

117 
146 
154 
170 
122 
181 
133 
139 
156 
139 
156 
148 
133 
161 
180 
178 
174 
174 
159 
165 
167 
161 
143 
180 
152 
154 
135 
144 
154 

123 
163 
173 
195 
130 
210 
145 
153 
175 
153 
175 
165 
145 
183 
208 
205 
200 
200 
180 
188 
190 
183 
158 
208 
170 
173 
148 
160 
173 

128 
153 
171 
176 
130 
202 
157 
158 
163 
158 
163 
169 
133 
165 
186 
193 
184 
184 
172 
174 
167 
165 
144 
186 
154 
171 
149 
160 
171 

127 
156 
171 
181 
130 
204 
153 
157 
167 
157 
167 
168 
137 
170 
192 
197 
189 
189 
174 
178 
173 
170 
148 
192 
159 
171 
149 
160 
171 

226 

130 
150 
170 
170 
130 
200 
160 
160 
160 
160 
160 
170 
130 
160 
180 
190 
180 
180 
170 
170 
160 
160 
140 
180 
150 
170 
150 
160 
170 

130 
167 
180 
201 
147 
219 
161 
166 
192 
165 
188 
176 
153 
185 
201 
215 
198 
210 
183 
191 
191 
173 
155 
205 
177 
178 
150 
171 
180 

130 
156 
178 
174 
132 
208 
164 
162 
162 
164 
160 
174 
130 
166 
184 
196 
188 
186 
172 
174 
164 
166 
140 
190 
154 
174 
158 
162 
178 

 
 
0DAECB 
D0AECB 
E0ADCB 
0EADCB 
AE0DCB 
EA0DCB 
0AEDCB 
A0EDCB 
C0EDAB 
0CEDAB 
EC0DAB 
CE0DAB 
0ECDAB 
E0CDAB 
E0DCAB 
0EDCAB 
DE0CAB 
ED0CAB 
0DECAB 
D0ECAB 
DCE0AB 
CDE0AB 
EDC0AB 
DEC0AB 
CED0AB 
ECD0AB 
0CDEAB 
C0DEAB 
D0CEAB 

142 
143 
170 
170 
158 
193 
135 
170 
137 
145 
167 
135 
138 
165 
165 
142 
153 
170 
143 
150 
142 
127 
160 
145 
130 
157 
160 
155 
170 

131 
130 
156 
156 
146 
174 
128 
156 
126 
139 
148 
128 
124 
150 
150 
131 
141 
156 
130 
133 
131 
115 
144 
128 
122 
137 
144 
139 
156 

143 
140 
175 
175 
163 
200 
138 
175 
135 
153 
165 
138 
133 
168 
168 
143 
155 
175 
140 
145 
143 
120 
160 
138 
130 
150 
160 
153 
175 

141 
148 
163 
163 
153 
184 
132 
163 
139 
135 
169 
132 
146 
162 
162 
141 
151 
163 
148 
157 
141 
136 
160 
155 
130 
166 
160 
158 
163 

141 
146 
167 
167 
156 
189 
133 
167 
138 
140 
168 
133 
142 
163 
163 
141 
152 
167 
146 
153 
141 
131 
160 
150 
130 
161 
160 
157 
167 

227 

140 
150 
160 
160 
150 
180 
130 
160 
140 
130 
170 
130 
150 
160 
160 
140 
150 
160 
150 
160 
140 
140 
160 
160 
130 
170 
160 
160 
160 

145 
157 
180 
182 
169 
210 
153 
192 
149 
147 
172 
134 
141 
164 
173 
157 
154 
181 
144 
161 
152 
129 
180 
153 
143 
166 
160 
162 
177 

144 
152 
164 
168 
150 
184 
132 
162 
142 
134 
174 
130 
156 
164 
162 
144 
152 
166 
156 
164 
138 
142 
162 
162 
132 
176 
168 
164 
164 

 
 
0DCEAB 
CD0EAB 
DC0EAB 
AC0EDB 
CA0EDB 
0ACEDB 
A0CEDB 
C0AEDB 
0CAEDB 
0CEADB 
C0EADB 
E0CADB 
0ECADB 
CE0ADB 
EC0ADB 
EA0CDB 
AE0CDB 
0EACDB 
E0ACDB 
A0ECDB 
0AECDB 
CAE0DB 
ACE0DB 
ECA0DB 
CEA0DB 
AEC0DB 
EAC0DB 
EBC0DA 
BEC0DA 

158 
150 
167 
188 
142 
163 
168 
125 
140 
168 
160 
175 
148 
135 
167 
188 
153 
183 
183 
162 
127 
130 
187 
172 
158 
155 
212 
217 
167 

146 
133 
148 
169 
131 
152 
157 
117 
133 
157 
144 
161 
135 
128 
148 
169 
141 
163 
163 
143 
115 
122 
170 
154 
146 
139 
187 
193 
148 

163 
145 
165 
193 
143 
170 
178 
123 
145 
178 
160 
183 
148 
138 
165 
193 
155 
185 
185 
158 
120 
130 
195 
173 
163 
153 
218 
225 
165 

153 
157 
169 
183 
141 
154 
156 
128 
133 
156 
160 
165 
149 
132 
169 
183 
151 
181 
181 
167 
136 
130 
176 
171 
153 
158 
204 
206 
169 

156 
153 
168 
186 
141 
159 
162 
127 
137 
162 
160 
170 
149 
133 
168 
186 
152 
182 
182 
164 
131 
130 
181 
171 
156 
157 
208 
211 
168 

228 

150 
160 
170 
180 
140 
150 
150 
130 
130 
150 
160 
160 
150 
130 
170 
180 
150 
180 
180 
170 
140 
130 
170 
170 
150 
160 
200 
200 
170 

166 
161 
185 
202 
156 
171 
176 
139 
146 
166 
168 
173 
150 
135 
173 
195 
154 
189 
187 
170 
131 
133 
186 
178 
165 
162 
220 
226 
172 

154 
166 
172 
184 
142 
154 
152 
130 
134 
158 
166 
166 
158 
132 
176 
186 
152 
188 
184 
174 
144 
130 
172 
174 
152 
162 
206 
206 
172 

 
 
CEB0DA 
ECB0DA 
BCE0DA 
CBE0DA 
CB0EDA 
BC0EDA 
0CBEDA 
C0BEDA 
B0CEDA 
0BCEDA 
0ECBDA 
E0CBDA 
C0EBDA 
0CEBDA 
EC0BDA 
CE0BDA 
BE0CDA 
EB0CDA 
0BECDA 
B0ECDA 
E0BCDA 
0EBCDA 
DEBC0A 
EDBC0A 
BDEC0A 
DBEC0A 
EBDC0A 
BEDC0A 
BECD0A 

168 
182 
192 
142 
152 
193 
152 
137 
178 
168 
160 
187 
172 
180 
178 
147 
165 
198 
138 
172 
188 
188 
195 
188 
173 
145 
195 
160 
157 

157 
165 
176 
131 
143 
174 
143 
126 
169 
157 
144 
170 
154 
167 
157 
137 
150 
180 
124 
154 
169 
169 
172 
169 
152 
128 
172 
144 
137 

178 
188 
203 
143 
158 
200 
158 
135 
193 
178 
160 
195 
173 
190 
178 
150 
168 
208 
133 
173 
193 
193 
198 
193 
170 
138 
198 
160 
150 

156 
174 
177 
141 
144 
184 
144 
139 
159 
156 
160 
176 
171 
167 
179 
142 
162 
186 
146 
171 
183 
183 
192 
183 
178 
155 
192 
160 
166 

162 
178 
184 
141 
148 
189 
148 
138 
169 
162 
160 
181 
171 
173 
179 
144 
163 
192 
142 
171 
186 
186 
193 
186 
176 
150 
193 
160 
161 

229 

150 
170 
170 
140 
140 
180 
140 
140 
150 
150 
160 
170 
170 
160 
180 
140 
160 
180 
150 
170 
180 
180 
190 
180 
180 
160 
190 
160 
170 

176 
190 
192 
143 
167 
208 
157 
150 
188 
176 
160 
183 
178 
176 
183 
145 
164 
206 
141 
181 
193 
195 
207 
202 
177 
154 
208 
180 
166 

152 
174 
172 
140 
142 
184 
144 
140 
152 
154 
168 
176 
176 
168 
186 
142 
162 
186 
154 
174 
184 
188 
194 
184 
186 
160 
196 
160 
174 

 
 
EBCD0A 
CBED0A 
BCED0A 
ECBD0A 
CEBD0A 
CDBE0A 
DCBE0A 
BCDE0A 
CBDE0A 
DBCE0A 
BDCE0A 
EDCB0A 
DECB0A 
CEDB0A 
ECDB0A 
DCEB0A 
CDEB0A 
0DEBCA 
D0EBCA 
E0DBCA 
0EDBCA 
DE0BCA 
ED0BCA 
EDB0CA 
DEB0CA 
BED0CA 
EBD0CA 
DBE0CA 
BDE0CA 

207 
137 
187 
178 
165 
127 
148 
183 
148 
170 
170 
175 
160 
140 
167 
175 
160 
193 
200 
193 
170 
177 
193 
180 
187 
170 
205 
153 
182 

181 
126 
170 
157 
150 
115 
135 
163 
135 
156 
156 
161 
144 
133 
148 
161 
144 
174 
178 
174 
156 
159 
174 
167 
170 
156 
183 
141 
165 

210 
135 
195 
178 
168 
120 
148 
185 
148 
175 
175 
183 
160 
145 
165 
183 
160 
200 
205 
200 
175 
180 
200 
190 
195 
175 
213 
155 
188 

202 
139 
176 
179 
162 
136 
149 
181 
149 
163 
163 
165 
160 
133 
169 
165 
160 
184 
193 
184 
163 
172 
184 
167 
176 
163 
195 
151 
174 

204 
138 
181 
179 
163 
131 
149 
182 
149 
167 
167 
170 
160 
137 
168 
170 
160 
189 
197 
189 
167 
174 
189 
173 
181 
167 
200 
152 
178 

230 

200 
140 
170 
180 
160 
140 
150 
180 
150 
160 
160 
160 
160 
130 
170 
160 
160 
180 
190 
180 
160 
170 
180 
160 
170 
160 
190 
150 
170 

219 
152 
201 
185 
171 
129 
161 
187 
148 
174 
175 
197 
171 
153 
176 
194 
171 
198 
215 
195 
180 
183 
210 
191 
196 
181 
210 
154 
177 

208 
142 
174 
188 
166 
140 
148 
184 
154 
160 
162 
162 
162 
130 
174 
160 
164 
188 
196 
184 
166 
172 
186 
164 
174 
164 
200 
150 
176 

 
 
B0EDCA 
0BEDCA 
EB0DCA 
BE0DCA 
0EBDCA 
E0BDCA 
D0BECA 
0DBECA 
BD0ECA 
DB0ECA 
0BDECA 
B0DECA 
C0DEBA 
0CDEBA 
DC0EBA 
CD0EBA 
0DCEBA 
D0CEBA 
D0ECBA 
0DECBA 
ED0CBA 
DE0CBA 
0EDCBA 
E0DCBA 
ECD0BA 
CED0BA 
DEC0BA 
EDC0BA 
CDE0BA 

175 
142 
198 
165 
177 
177 
150 
143 
178 
160 
155 
177 
153 
158 
165 
148 
157 
168 
148 
142 
168 
152 
140 
163 
155 
128 
143 
158 
125 

161 
131 
180 
150 
159 
159 
133 
130 
157 
144 
139 
159 
141 
146 
150 
135 
148 
157 
135 
131 
157 
143 
133 
152 
139 
124 
130 
146 
117 

183 
143 
208 
168 
180 
180 
145 
140 
178 
160 
153 
180 
155 
163 
168 
148 
165 
178 
148 
143 
178 
158 
145 
170 
153 
133 
140 
163 
123 

165 
141 
186 
162 
172 
172 
157 
148 
179 
160 
158 
172 
151 
153 
162 
149 
146 
156 
149 
141 
156 
144 
133 
154 
158 
123 
148 
153 
128 

170 
141 
192 
163 
174 
174 
153 
146 
179 
160 
157 
174 
152 
156 
163 
149 
151 
162 
149 
141 
162 
148 
137 
159 
157 
126 
146 
156 
127 

231 

160 
140 
180 
160 
170 
170 
160 
150 
180 
160 
160 
170 
150 
150 
160 
150 
140 
150 
150 
140 
150 
140 
130 
150 
160 
120 
150 
150 
130 

197 
157 
215 
173 
186 
184 
161 
144 
185 
171 
155 
184 
161 
159 
184 
160 
165 
176 
160 
143 
180 
153 
156 
172 
165 
142 
152 
179 
128 

162 
142 
184 
160 
178 
174 
162 
154 
188 
162 
168 
174 
152 
156 
160 
154 
142 
152 
152 
144 
154 
140 
132 
150 
164 
120 
150 
150 
130 

 
 
DCE0BA 
0CEDBA 
C0EDBA 
E0CDBA 
0ECDBA 
CE0DBA 
EC0DBA 
BC0DEA 
CB0DEA 
0BCDEA 
B0CDEA 
C0BDEA 
0CBDEA 
0CDBEA 
C0DBEA 
D0CBEA 
0DCBEA 
CD0BEA 
DC0BEA 
DB0CEA 
BD0CEA 
0DBCEA 
D0BCEA 
B0DCEA 
0BDCEA 
CBD0EA 
BCD0EA 
DCB0EA 
CDB0EA 

140 
138 
130 
158 
132 
128 
160 
212 
170 
183 
193 
167 
182 
160 
155 
177 
165 
150 
167 
180 
198 
187 
193 
192 
170 
172 
207 
182 
160 

133 
135 
122 
146 
120 
124 
144 
187 
156 
163 
174 
148 
165 
144 
139 
159 
150 
133 
148 
167 
180 
170 
174 
176 
156 
154 
181 
165 
144 

145 
148 
130 
163 
128 
133 
160 
218 
175 
185 
200 
165 
188 
160 
153 
180 
168 
145 
165 
190 
208 
195 
200 
203 
175 
173 
210 
188 
160 

133 
126 
130 
153 
137 
123 
160 
204 
163 
181 
184 
169 
174 
160 
158 
172 
162 
157 
169 
167 
186 
176 
184 
177 
163 
171 
202 
174 
160 

137 
132 
130 
156 
134 
126 
160 
208 
167 
182 
189 
168 
178 
160 
157 
174 
163 
153 
168 
173 
192 
181 
189 
184 
167 
171 
204 
178 
160 

232 

130 
120 
130 
150 
140 
120 
160 
200 
160 
180 
180 
170 
170 
160 
160 
170 
160 
160 
170 
160 
180 
170 
180 
170 
160 
170 
200 
170 
160 

151 
141 
143 
157 
134 
127 
165 
220 
180 
189 
201 
173 
180 
160 
162 
186 
175 
161 
185 
187 
201 
189 
206 
206 
177 
180 
219 
203 
171 

126 
122 
130 
152 
144 
118 
162 
206 
164 
188 
186 
176 
180 
166 
162 
174 
164 
164 
170 
162 
188 
176 
184 
172 
166 
178 
208 
172 
164 

 
 
BDC0EA 
DBC0EA 
ABC0ED 
BAC0ED 
CAB0ED 
ACB0ED 
BCA0ED 
CBA0ED 
CB0AED 
BC0AED 
0CBAED 
C0BAED 
B0CAED 
0BCAED 
0ACBED 
A0CBED 
C0ABED 
0CABED 
AC0BED 
CA0BED 
BA0CED 
AB0CED 
0BACED 
B0ACED 
A0BCED 
0ABCED 
EABC0D 
AEBC0D 
BEAC0D 

195 
195 
188 
187 
147 
203 
198 
140 
140 
182 
138 
123 
173 
163 
170 
175 
132 
147 
188 
142 
167 
173 
162 
197 
192 
163 
212 
205 
212 

172 
172 
169 
170 
137 
185 
180 
133 
133 
165 
135 
119 
163 
152 
156 
161 
120 
137 
169 
131 
159 
163 
154 
181 
176 
152 
187 
183 
187 

198 
198 
193 
195 
150 
215 
208 
145 
145 
188 
148 
125 
185 
170 
175 
183 
128 
150 
193 
143 
180 
185 
173 
210 
203 
170 
218 
213 
218 

192 
192 
183 
176 
142 
188 
186 
133 
133 
174 
126 
121 
158 
154 
163 
165 
137 
142 
183 
141 
149 
158 
147 
179 
177 
154 
204 
195 
204 

193 
193 
186 
181 
144 
196 
192 
137 
137 
178 
132 
122 
166 
159 
167 
170 
134 
144 
186 
141 
158 
166 
154 
188 
184 
159 
208 
200 
208 

233 

190 
190 
180 
170 
140 
180 
180 
130 
130 
170 
120 
120 
150 
150 
160 
160 
140 
140 
180 
140 
140 
150 
140 
170 
170 
150 
200 
190 
200 

208 
207 
201 
200 
161 
219 
213 
154 
156 
197 
144 
137 
186 
174 
179 
184 
143 
150 
201 
155 
174 
181 
168 
210 
204 
170 
219 
215 
219 

196 
194 
186 
174 
144 
186 
186 
132 
132 
174 
124 
120 
154 
156 
166 
164 
142 
146 
184 
142 
142 
154 
144 
174 
174 
156 
208 
196 
206 

 
 
EBAC0D 
ABEC0D 
BAEC0D 
BACE0D 
ABCE0D 
CBAE0D 
BCAE0D 
ACBE0D 
CABE0D 
CEBA0D 
ECBA0D 
BCEA0D 
CBEA0D 
EBCA0D 
BECA0D 
AECB0D 
EACB0D 
CAEB0D 
ACEB0D 
ECAB0D 
CEAB0D 
0EABCD 
E0ABCD 
A0EBCD 
0AEBCD 
EA0BCD 
AE0BCD 
AEB0CD 
EAB0CD 

210 
162 
153 
185 
187 
128 
187 
193 
137 
157 
170 
215 
165 
222 
172 
170 
227 
163 
220 
177 
163 
183 
183 
212 
177 
212 
177 
187 
193 

189 
143 
141 
172 
170 
124 
170 
174 
126 
148 
156 
194 
150 
198 
154 
156 
204 
152 
200 
159 
152 
163 
163 
187 
159 
187 
159 
170 
174 

220 
158 
155 
198 
195 
133 
195 
200 
135 
165 
175 
228 
168 
233 
173 
175 
240 
170 
235 
180 
170 
185 
185 
218 
180 
218 
180 
195 
200 

197 
167 
151 
168 
176 
123 
176 
184 
139 
146 
163 
198 
162 
207 
171 
163 
209 
154 
200 
172 
154 
181 
181 
204 
172 
204 
172 
176 
184 

203 
164 
152 
177 
181 
126 
181 
189 
138 
151 
167 
207 
163 
214 
171 
167 
218 
159 
210 
174 
159 
182 
182 
208 
174 
208 
174 
181 
189 

234 

190 
170 
150 
160 
170 
120 
170 
180 
140 
140 
160 
190 
160 
200 
170 
160 
200 
150 
190 
170 
150 
180 
180 
200 
170 
200 
170 
170 
180 

218 
165 
160 
184 
185 
131 
190 
195 
136 
163 
176 
222 
173 
231 
177 
179 
237 
174 
228 
183 
170 
188 
186 
223 
184 
223 
182 
195 
200 

196 
174 
152 
162 
174 
120 
174 
184 
142 
142 
164 
196 
164 
208 
174 
164 
208 
154 
196 
176 
154 
190 
186 
208 
178 
208 
174 
176 
188 

 
 
BAE0CD 
ABE0CD 
EBA0CD 
BEA0CD 
B0AECD 
0BAECD 
AB0ECD 
BA0ECD 
0ABECD 
A0BECD 
E0BACD 
0EBACD 
BE0ACD 
EB0ACD 
0BEACD 
B0EACD 
C0EABD 
0CEABD 
EC0ABD 
CE0ABD 
0ECABD 
E0CABD 
E0ACBD 
0EACBD 
AE0CBD 
EA0CBD 
0AECBD 
A0ECBD 
ACE0BD 

152 
160 
187 
188 
160 
125 
167 
160 
133 
162 
182 
182 
183 
217 
183 
217 
167 
175 
173 
142 
155 
182 
205 
205 
175 
210 
148 
183 
198 

143 
144 
170 
169 
144 
117 
148 
144 
119 
143 
165 
165 
163 
193 
163 
193 
148 
161 
152 
131 
139 
165 
183 
183 
161 
189 
135 
163 
180 

158 
160 
195 
193 
160 
123 
165 
160 
125 
158 
188 
188 
185 
225 
185 
225 
165 
183 
170 
143 
153 
188 
213 
213 
183 
220 
148 
185 
208 

144 
160 
176 
183 
160 
128 
169 
160 
144 
167 
174 
174 
181 
206 
181 
206 
169 
165 
178 
141 
158 
174 
195 
195 
165 
197 
149 
181 
186 

148 
160 
181 
186 
160 
127 
168 
160 
139 
164 
178 
178 
182 
211 
182 
211 
168 
170 
176 
141 
157 
178 
200 
200 
170 
203 
149 
182 
192 

235 

140 
160 
170 
180 
160 
130 
170 
160 
150 
170 
170 
170 
180 
200 
180 
200 
170 
160 
180 
140 
160 
170 
190 
190 
160 
190 
150 
180 
180 

152 
157 
193 
194 
170 
129 
175 
168 
134 
169 
185 
187 
186 
228 
188 
228 
172 
170 
176 
138 
154 
176 
205 
207 
172 
213 
149 
188 
196 

142 
164 
176 
186 
164 
134 
176 
164 
156 
174 
174 
178 
184 
208 
188 
208 
178 
170 
188 
144 
170 
178 
198 
202 
166 
200 
158 
188 
186 

 
 
CAE0BD 
EAC0BD 
AEC0BD 
CEA0BD 
ECA0BD 
0CAEBD 
C0AEBD 
A0CEBD 
0ACEBD 
CA0EBD 
AC0EBD 
BC0EAD 
CB0EAD 
0BCEAD 
B0CEAD 
C0BEAD 
0CBEAD 
0CEBAD 
C0EBAD 
E0CBAD 
0ECBAD 
CE0BAD 
EC0BAD 
EB0CAD 
BE0CAD 
0EBCAD 
E0BCAD 
B0ECAD 
0BECAD 

142 
223 
167 
170 
183 
175 
160 
203 
198 
177 
223 
217 
175 
192 
202 
160 
175 
167 
158 
173 
147 
133 
165 
208 
175 
198 
198 
182 
148 

131 
196 
148 
156 
163 
161 
144 
185 
180 
159 
196 
193 
161 
176 
187 
144 
161 
159 
146 
163 
137 
130 
150 
191 
161 
180 
180 
165 
135 

143 
230 
165 
175 
185 
183 
160 
215 
208 
180 
230 
225 
183 
203 
218 
160 
183 
180 
163 
185 
150 
140 
168 
223 
183 
208 
208 
188 
148 

141 
214 
169 
163 
181 
165 
160 
188 
186 
172 
214 
206 
165 
177 
181 
160 
165 
149 
153 
158 
142 
124 
162 
189 
165 
186 
186 
174 
149 

141 
219 
168 
167 
182 
170 
160 
196 
192 
174 
219 
211 
170 
184 
191 
160 
170 
158 
156 
166 
144 
129 
163 
199 
170 
192 
192 
178 
149 

236 

140 
210 
170 
160 
180 
160 
160 
180 
180 
170 
210 
200 
160 
170 
170 
160 
160 
140 
150 
150 
140 
120 
160 
180 
160 
180 
180 
170 
150 

143 
230 
172 
175 
188 
174 
167 
204 
198 
184 
230 
225 
185 
194 
205 
167 
174 
164 
166 
171 
148 
133 
170 
214 
172 
203 
201 
189 
149 

144 
220 
176 
166 
188 
170 
166 
188 
190 
178 
220 
210 
168 
180 
178 
166 
170 
148 
156 
156 
148 
122 
166 
190 
166 
192 
188 
178 
158 

 
 
CBE0AD 
BCE0AD 
ECB0AD 
CEB0AD 
BEC0AD 
EBC0AD 

142 
192 
182 
168 
167 
217 

131 
176 
165 
157 
148 
193 

143 
203 
188 
178 
165 
225 

141 
184 
178 
162 
168 
211 

141 
177 
174 
156 
169 
206 

140 
170 
170 
150 
170 
200 

143 
192 
189 
176 
172 
225 

144 
176 
178 
156 
176 
210 

When comparing monetisable costs and benefits using the Cost-Benefit analysis approach246 described in Annex 9.1 above, we conclude that in none of 
the options 1.3.A, 1.3.B, 1.3.C, or 1.3.C do the estimated benefits clearly outweigh the costs of the measure (also taking into account the standard deviation). 
As regards option 1.3.E, no Cost-Benefit analysis was conducted as this option was identified after the consultations had been concluded, and the necessary 
data for the CBA was therefore lacking. 

Problem 1.3.: CBA of the various options (present value (@4%) at prices of 2019, millions of euros)  

Average  ± One Standard deviation 

1.3.A 

1.3.B 

1.3.C 

1.3.D 

1.3.E 

2025 - 2040 

-255 ± 230 

430 ± 1060 

-3077 ± 90 

-3515 ± 332 

2025 - 2050 

12 ± 340 

1070 ± 1480 

-4030 ± 115  

-4277 ± 457 

NA 

NA 

246 The discount rate is 4%. 

237 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.3. 

Sub-problem 2.1: Early obsolescence 

Two options were selected for analysis: 
Option 2.1.A: Collection of evidence on early failures of products identified by authorised entities 
Option 2.1.B: Ban of certain identified practices associated with early obsolescence 

The table below summarises the assessment of the baseline and of each option against each assessment criterion (the assessment of their impacts is described 
in detail in Annex 8). 

The comparison of the measures/options using a multi-criteria analysis shows that in the default scenario where Effectiveness has a weight of 30 points, 
Efficiency 60 points and Coherence 10 points: 
- Both options rank higher than the baseline scenario 
- Option B (2.1.B) ranks the highest, followed by Option A (2.1.A) and then the baseline. 
The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the ranking of options with the highest score remains unchanged in all 8 scenarios of weights tested. The 
final scores for each scenario and for all possible option ranking are presented in the table below. 

Results of the sensitivity analysis for the options for Sub-Problem 2.1 
Effectiveness 20%, 
Effectiveness 1/3, 
Ranking of options Default: 
Efficiency 
Efficiency 1/3 
70% and 
and 
Coherence 
Coherence 
10% 
1/3 

Effectiveness 45%, 
Efficiency 
45% and 
Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness 
30%, 
Efficiency 
60% and 
Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness 10%, 
Efficiency 
80% and 
Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness 0%, 
Efficiency 
90% and 
Coherence 
10% 

Experts 

0AB 
0BA 
A0B 
AB0 
B0A 
BA0 

84 
114 
86 
102 
130 
132 

94 
131 
96 
102 
137 
139 

58 
108 
95 
138 
150 
188 

75 
117 
91 
116 
142 
158 

80 
120 
90 
110 
140 
150 

70 
114 
92 
122 
144 
167 

238 

Worst-case 

scenario: 
Efficiency 
100% (of 
which 60% 
allocated to 
costs and 
40% to 
benefits) 

75 
119 
105 
136 
150 
180 

72 
112 
88 
116 
140 
156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
When comparing monetisable costs and benefits using the Cost-Benefit analysis approach247 described in Annex 9.1 above, we conclude that both Option 
2.1.A and Option 2.1.B bring net benefits, however the uncertainty of Option 2.1.A is higher compared to the total costs and benefits.  

Problem 2.1.: CBA of the various options (present value (@4%) at prices of 2019, millions of euros)  

Average  ± One Standard deviation 

2.1.A 

2.1.B 

2025 - 2040 

2025 - 2050 

134 ± 50 

242 ± 74 

592 ± 310 

1197 ± 450 

2.4. 

Sub-problem 2.2: Greenwashing 

Three options were selected for analysis: 
- Option 2.2.A: Ban of general/vague environmental claims   
- Option 2.2.B: Prohibition of environmental claims that do not fulfil a minimum set of criteria 
- Option 2.2.C: Option 2.2A + 2.2B 

The table below summarises the assessment of the baseline and of each option against each assessment criterion (the assessment of their impacts is described 
in detail in Annex 8). 

The comparison of the options using a multi-criteria analysis shows that in the default scenario where Effectiveness has a weight of 30 points, Efficiency 
60 points and Coherence 10 points: 
- All options rank higher than the baseline scenario 

247 The discount rate is 4%. 

239 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
- Option C (2.2.C) ranks the highest, followed by Option A (2.2A), followed by Option B (2.2B), and followed by the baseline. 

The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the ranking of options remains unchanged for all 8 of the scenarios considered. The final scores for each 
scenario and for all possible option ranking are presented in the table below. 

Results of the sensitivity analysis for the options for Sub-Problem 2.2 

Ranking  of 
options 

Default: 
Effectiveness 
30%, 
Efficiency 
60% and 
Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness 1/3, 

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness 0%, 

Experts 

Efficiency 
1/3 and 
Coherence 
1/3 

45%, 
Efficiency 
45% and 
Coherence 
10% 

20%, 
Efficiency 
70% and 
Coherence 
10% 

10%, 
Efficiency 
80% and 
Coherence 
10% 

Efficiency 
90% and 
Coherence 
10% 

Worst-case scenario: 
Efficiency 100% 
(of which 60% 
allocated to 
costs and 40% to 
benefits) 

0ABC 
A0BC 
B0AC 
0BAC 
AB0C 
BA0C 
CA0B 
AC0B 
0CAB 
C0AB 
A0CB 
0ACB 
0BCA 
B0CA 
C0BA 
0CBA 
BC0A 

72 
108 
90 
53 
145 
127 
200 
178 
127 
163 
142 
105 
75 
112 
145 
108 
148 

43 
80 
67 
30 
117 
104 
167 
146 
93 
130 
109 
72 
50 
87 
117 
80 
124 

58 
108 
90 
40 
158 
140 
225 
198 
125 
175 
148 
98 
68 
118 
158 
108 
168 

91 
109 
90 
71 
128 
109 
167 
153 
129 
148 
134 
115 
85 
104 
128 
109 
123 

100 
110 
90 
80 
120 
100 
150 
140 
130 
140 
130 
120 
90 
100 
120 
110 
110 

80 
125 
98 
53 
171 
144 
232 
212 
141 
187 
166 
120 
73 
119 
160 
114 
164 

116 
122 
102 
96 
128 
108 
154 
146 
142 
148 
140 
134 
104 
110 
128 
122 
116 

81 
109 
90 
62 
137 
118 
183 
166 
128 
156 
138 
110 
80 
108 
137 
109 
136 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
CB0A 
CBA0 
BCA0 
ACB0 
CAB0 
BAC0 
ABC0 

182 
218 
185 
215 
237 
163 
182 

154 
191 
161 
183 
204 
141 
154 

208 
258 
218 
248 
275 
190 
208 

164 
192 
163 
193 
211 
146 
164 

147 
166 
142 
172 
186 
128 
147 

130 
140 
120 
150 
160 
110 
130 

205 
251 
210 
257 
278 
189 
216 

134 
140 
122 
152 
160 
114 
134 

When comparing monetisable costs and benefits using the Cost-Benefit analysis approach248 described in Annex 9.1 above, it was concluded that Option 
2.2.C clearly brings net benefits to society, while this is not necessarily the case for options 2.2.A and 2.2.B considered independently. 

Problem 2.2.: CBA of the various options (present value (@4%) at prices of 2019, millions of euros)  

Average  ± One Standard deviation 

2.2.A 

2.2.B 

2.2.C 

2025 - 2040 

2025 - 2050 

23 ± 1005 

-789 ± 986 

1893 ± 1005 

1067 ± 1156 

978 ± 1067 

3916 ± 2153 

2.5. 

Sub-problem 2.3: Sustainability labels and digital information tools 

Three options were selected for analysis: 
- Option 2.3.A: Development of principles promoting the transparency and credibility of sustainability labels and information tools for voluntary uptake 
- Option 2.3.B: Prohibition of sustainability labels and digital information tools not meeting minimum transparency and credibility requirements   

248 The discount rate is 4%. 

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
- Option 2.3.C: Pre-approval of sustainability labels and digital information tools via an EU body 

The table below summarises the assessment of the baseline and of each option against each assessment criterion (the assessment of their impacts is described 
in detail in Annex 8). 

The comparison of the options using a multi-criteria analysis shows that in the default scenario where Effectiveness has a weight of 30 points, Efficiency 
60 points and Coherence 10 points: 
- Option B (2.3.B) ranks the highest, followed by Option C (2.3.C). Option A (2.3.A) is tied with the baseline. 
The results of the sensitivity analysis show that Option B (2.3.B) ranks the highest in all 8 of the scenarios considered. The final scores for each scenario 
and for all possible option rankings are presented in the table below. 

Results of the sensitivity analysis for the options for Sub-Problem 2.3 

Ranking  of 
options 

Default: 

Effectiveness 
30%, Efficiency 
60% 
and 
Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness  1/3, 
Efficiency  1/3 
and 
Coherence 
1/3 

Effectiveness  45%, 
Efficiency  45% 
and Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness  20%, 
Efficiency  70% 
and Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness  10%, 
Efficiency  80% 
and Coherence 
10% 

Effectiveness  0%, 
Efficiency  90% 
and Coherence 
10% 

Experts 

Worst-case  scenario: 
100% 
Efficiency 
(of  which 
60% 
allocated  to  costs 
and 
to 
40% 
benefits) 

0ABC 
A0BC 
B0AC 
0BAC 
AB0C 
BA0C 
CA0B 
AC0B 
0CAB 
C0AB 
A0CB 

120 
120 
193 
157 
157 
193 
165 
135 
135 
165 
105 

67 
67 
141 
104 
104 
141 
128 
94 
94 
128 
61 

90 
90 
190 
140 
140 
190 
173 
128 
128 
173 
83 

160 
160 
198 
179 
179 
198 
155 
145 
145 
155 
135 

140 
140 
196 
168 
168 
196 
160 
140 
140 
160 
120 

242 

180 
180 
200 
190 
190 
200 
150 
150 
150 
150 
150 

97 
92 
190 
143 
139 
185 
175 
129 
133 
180 
82 

216 
214 
224 
220 
218 
222 
162 
170 
172 
164 
178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0ACB 
0BCA 
B0CA 
C0BA 
0CBA 
BC0A 
CB0A 
CBA0 
BCA0 
ACB0 
CAB0 
BAC0 
ABC0 

105 
187 
223 
202 
172 
253 
238 
238 
253 
172 
202 
223 
187 

61 
137 
174 
165 
131 
207 
202 
202 
207 
131 
165 
174 
137 

83 
185 
235 
223 
178 
280 
273 
273 
280 
178 
223 
235 
185 

120 
188 
216 
188 
168 
236 
216 
216 
236 
168 
188 
216 
188 

135 
189 
208 
174 
164 
218 
193 
193 
218 
164 
174 
208 
189 

150 
190 
200 
160 
160 
200 
170 
170 
200 
160 
160 
200 
190 

87 
190 
237 
227 
180 
283 
273 
269 
279 
175 
222 
232 
185 

180 
212 
216 
168 
176 
208 
172 
170 
206 
174 
166 
214 
210 

When comparing monetisable costs and benefits using the Cost-Benefit analysis approach249 described in Annex 9.1 above, we conclude that Option 2.3.B 
brings net benefits to society.  Due to the voluntary nature of Option 2.3.A no CBA analysis was conducted for this option. 

Problem 2.3.: CBA of Option 2.3.B and Option 2.3.C (present value (@4%) at prices of 2019, millions of euros)  

2.3.B 

2.3.C 

2025 - 2040 

2025 - 2050 

1675 ± 1162 

1587 ± 1072 

2518 ± 1597 

2296 ± 1474 

249 The discount rate is 4%. 

243 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 10: MONITORING INDICATORS 

The following table provides an overview of the monitoring indicators, sources of data and 
targets. The date indicated for target indicators is "5 years after entry into application" to 
enable data processing and preparation of the evaluation 5 years after entry into application. 

Baseline  Target in 5 
years after 
entry  into 
applicatio
n250251 
70-80% 

62%252 

Source  of 
data/or 
collection 
methods 

Consumer 
survey 

60% 
-70%253  

30-40% 

Consumer 
survey 

Data 
collected 
already?  

Actors 
responsible 
for 
collection 

data 

but 

in  a 

Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available  
Yes 

EC 

EC 

/ 

90%254-
100% 

Consumer 
survey 

No 

EC 

Objectives  Monitoring indicators 

Enable 
informed 
purchasing 
decision  by 
consumers 
foster 
to 
sustainable 
consumptio
n 

of 

Share 
interested 
information 
on 
durability of goods  

consumers 
receive 
the 

to 

Share  of  consumers  who 
found  it  difficult  to  know 
how products compared on 
aspects  other  than  price, 
such  as  quality,  how  long 
they would last etc. 
Share  of  consumers  who 
with 
provided 
were 
information 
the 
existence  and  length  (or 
absence) of the producer’s 
commercial guarantee  of 
durability 
for 
For 
which 
commercial 
guarantee  is  offered,  the 
period  covered  is  at  least 
two years  

those  products 

about 

a 

82%255 

100% 

Mystery 
shopping 

in  a 

Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available 

but 

Most  common  duration  of 
commercial 
guarantees 
offered 

3 years  

4-5 years 

Mystery 
shopping 

of 

consumers 
Share 
interested 
receive 
information  relevant  for 
the repair of goods in  

to 

55%256 

70-80% 

Consumer 
survey 

in  a 

but 

Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available 
Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available 

in  a 

but 

EC 

EC 

EC 

250 Based on the analysis of problems and the expected impact of the preferred policy options. 
251 Percentage of products falling under the product scope of the preferred options 
252 See: Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy, 2018, p. 47. 
253 Percentages vary depending on source and product. See Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular 
Economy, 2018, p.147; and Consumer Market Monitoring Survey 2019, p. 14. 
254 Assuming a certain level of non-compliance. 
255 European Commission, Impact Assessment supporting study:  Study on Empowering Consumers Towards the Green 

Transition, July 2021, Annexes, p.422. 

256 European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy, 2018, p. 47. 

244 

 
 
 
                                                           
Share of consumers who are 
informed 
the 
reparability of products  

about 

19%257 

40-50% 

Consumer 
survey 

Share of consumers who are 
informed  of  the  existence 
and length of the  period of 
free 
of 
availability 
software updates 
Share of consumers for who 
the  product  broke  shortly 
after the legal guarantee or 
commercial 
guarantee 
period 

Share  of  consumers  for 
whom  a  software  update 
negatively 
a 
affected 
product’s functioning 

/ 

15%258 

0-5% 

18%259 

0-5% 

Number 
consumer 
of 
complaints  for  products 
that fail early 

/ 

run 

Eliminate 
misleading 
practices 
that 
against 
sustainable 
economy 
and 
mislead 
consumers 
away  from 
sustainable 
consumptio
n choices 

Level of consumer trust in 
environmental claims 

55,3%260 

70-80% 

Level of consumer trust in 
sustainability labels 

62%261 

70-80% 

Consumer 
survey 

Consumer 
Scoreboard
/Market 
Monitoring 
Survey 

Consumer 
Scoreboard
/Market 
Monitoring 
Survey 
Feedback 
from  MSs, 
ODR 
platform 
Consumer 
Scoreboard
/Market 
Monitoring 
Survey 
Consumer 
survey 

of 

Share 
influenced 
environmental claims 

consumers 
by 

56,8%262  70-80% 

Consumer 
Scoreboard 

in  a 

but 

Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available 
Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available 
Yes 

in  a 

but 

EC 

EC 

EC 

Yes 

EC 

No 

EC, MSs 

Yes 

EC 

in  a 

but 

Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available 
Yes 

EC 

EC 

257  Study Supporting IA, Annexes, p.437. 
258 Consumer Market Monitoring Survey 2019, Household Appliances, p.33. 
259 Consumer Market Monitoring Survey 2019, Internet connected products p.5.  
260 European Commission, Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, p.11. 

261 European Commission, Impact Assessment supporting study:  Study on Empowering Consumers Towards the Green 

Transition, July 2021, Annexes, p. 172. 

262 European Commission, Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, p.11.  

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
a 
Ensure 
better  and 
coherent 
application 
of  the  EU 
legal 
framework 

Number  of  cases  where 
the 
information 
on 
of 
existence 
the 
commercial 
producer’s 
guarantee  of  durability  is 
not provided to consumers 

/ 

/ 

Number  of  cases  where 
information 
reparability 
(scoring,  manual, 
spare 
parts,  etc.)  is  applicable  or 
made 
by 
manufacturers,  but  is  not 
provided to consumers 

available 

Number  of  general/vague 
claims 
environmental 
which 
not 
substantiated 

are 

0%- 10% 

37%263 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Number  of  environmental 
claims that do not respect 
the criteria defined in this 
initiative 

Number  of  legal  cases  for 
early 
obsolescence 
practices 
launched  by 
Member States 
Number  of  sustainability 
labels 
digital 
and 
information  tools  that  do 
the 
respect 
not 
transparency 
and 
credibility requirements 

Monitoring 
compliance 
costs 
national authorities 

/ 

and 
for 

/ 

263 See: 2020 – sweep on misleading sustainability claims. 

246 

Regular 
checks 
in 
the  context 
of 
(coordinate
d)  market 
surveillanc
e activities 

Regular 
in 
checks 
the  context 
of 
(coordinate
d)  market 
surveillanc
e activities 

Regular 
checks 
in 
the  context 
of 
(coordinate
d)  market 
surveillanc
e activities 
Regular 
checks 
in 
the  context 
of 
(coordinate
d)  market 
surveillanc
e activities 
Feedback 
from MSs 

Regular 
checks 
in 
the  context 
of 
(coordinate
d)  market 
surveillanc
e activities 
Informatio
n 
collected 
via 

to  be 

the 

MSs, EC 

No 

No 

MSs, EC 

in  a 

MSs, EC 

Not 
recurrent 
way 
baseline 
available 

but 

No 

MSs, EC 

No 

MSs, EC 

No 

MSs, EC 

No 

MSs, EC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
/ 

90-100% 

No 

MSs, EC 

network  of 
consumer 
protection 
authorities 
Feedback 
from  MSs 
after 
coordinate
d  market 
surveillanc
e activities 

of 

the 

national 
Share 
that  consider 
authorities 
that 
initiative  has 
rendered it easier to address 
early 
greenwashing, 
non-
obsolescence 
transparent 
sustainability 
labels. 

and 

ANNEX 11: OPTIONS DISCARDED AT AN EARLY STAGE 

1. 

Problem  1:  Consumers  lack  reliable  information  at  the  point  of  sale  to 
make environmentally sustainable consumption choices 

1.1. 

Sub-problem  1.1:  Lack  of  reliable  information  about  products’ 
environmental characteristics 

For this sub-problem, a number of options have been discarded at an early stage, as their 
added value could not be demonstrated if taken via a horizontal consumer law instrument. 
These  options  are  the  following:  an  obligation  to  inform  on  product’s  environmental 
characteristics  for  all  consumer  products  (goods  and  services),  an  obligation  to  warn  on 
products with high negative impacts on the environment, an obligation to warn when there 
is “no proof” of good environmental performance of the product, and an obligation to inform 
on one single key environmental characteristic, i.e. related to climate change. Further details 
of  these  options  and  the  reasons  for  discarding  them  is  provided  below.  In  general, 
environmental characteristics of products are always specific to product groups. Depending 
on  the  product  group,  the  relevant  information  on  environmental  characteristics  to  be 
provided at the point of sale differs significantly. For these reasons, it was concluded that a 
horizontal consumer law instrument would not be the appropriate place to introduce such 
requirements. 

In relation to this particular sub-problem, the Green Claims Initiative will provide a common 
framework  for  those  companies  wishing  to  provide  information  on  the  environmental 
characteristics  of  their  products.  In  the  future,  the  SPI  initiative  or  future  eco-design 
information requirements and mandatory EU labelling schemes (i.e. EU energy label) will 
address this problem for certain product categories.  

The  SPI  framework  will  introduce  requirements  through  measures  potentially  covering  a 
range of product groups wider than eco-design (i.e. not only energy-related products), key 
value chains  (electronics,  batteries and cars, textile, packaging, plastics, construction and 
buildings), high-impact intermediary products (cement, steel and chemicals) and furniture, 
including  key  sectors  identified  in  the  CEAP  but  excluding  food,  and  possibly  including 
services.  

247 

 
 
 
 
The  information  to  be  required  under  these  initiatives  can  be  both  quantitative  and 
qualitative,  depending  on  the  availability  of  Product  Environmental  Footprint  Category 
Rules  (PEFCRs).  This  means  it  could  include  a  qualitative  listing  of  the  most  relevant 
environmental impacts of the product (based on the general PEF method), an improvement 
on  environmental  performance  over  time  (qualitative  if  based  on  the  PEF  method, 
quantitative when PEFCRs available),  or a “traffic-light” system with 3 to 5 performance 
classes (depending on the  Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules).     

For these reasons, the following options have been discarded at an early stage: 

Options  discarded  at 
an early stage 
Obligation  to  inform  
on 
product’s 
environmental 
characteristics for all 
consumer  products 
(goods and services)  

Rationale  

This option would require sellers, based on information provided by 
manufacturers,  to  provide  information  at  the  point  of  sale  of  the 
environmental  characteristics  of  products  (all  goods  and  services) 
based on a life-cycle assessment study in accordance with the Product 
Environmental Footprint (PEF) method264. 

This option has been discarded at an early stage given the likely very 
high costs such information would entail, both indirectly (on sellers; in 
searching  for  this  information)  and  directly  (on  manufacturers:  in 
producing this information), when implemented in a mandatory way 
on a horizontal scale. Moreover, such information would be only useful 
for  consumers  if  a  traffic  light  system  can  be  developed,  which  is 
depending on the availability of more specific Product Environmental 
Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) in the future.  

Furthermore, whilst based on the PEF method, this option would not 
be coherent with the objective of the planned Green Claims Initiative 
as it would de facto oblige all companies to assess the environmental 
performance  of  their  products  by  following  the  PEF  method.  The 
upcoming Green Claims initiative is not intended to render obligatory 
for  all  products  to  undertake  a  PEF  assessment.    Such    mandatory 
information will only be possible when considered for a specific sector 
or market, subject to an in-depth Impact Assessment for that sector, for 
example  in  the  context  or  a  future  product  implementing  measure 
under the future SPI. 

Obligation  to  warn 
on  products  with 
negative 
high 

This option would require sellers, based on information provided by 
manufacturers, to inform consumers by way of a warning of the high 

264  Product  Environmental  Footprint  (PEF).  PEF  studies  can  be  carried  out  both  based  on  the  overall  PEF  method 
(applicable to any product) and based on Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs). PEFCRs are quite 
detailed  to  guarantee  the  reproducibility,  comparability  and  reliability  of  the  information.  The  information  that  can  be 
derived from a PEF study or a PEFCR concerns any of the 16 environmental impacts in scope, information about the most 
relevant production processes (those contributing most significantly to the total impact), the most relevant life cycle stages, 
even the most relevant emissions. When a PEFCR exists, it is also possible to compare of the performance of the specific 
product with the benchmark (the environmental performance of the average product sold on the EU market). 

248 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
on 
impacts 
environment  

the 

negative environmental impacts of the product, within a given product 
category (‘worst in class’), during its life cycle.  

This  option  has  been  discarded  at  an  early  stage  as  the  impact  on 
consumer decision-making will depend on the availability of PEFCR 
for the specific product category in the future, which can confirm the 
high  negative  impacts.  Moreover,  companies  are  expected  to  be 
discouraged  to  assess  the  environmental  impacts  of  their  products 
(even if PEFCRs are available) as they would be obliged to inform the 
seller/consumer  in  case  of  negative  environmental  impacts  and  may 
thus  prefer  to  remain  in  the  “unknown”.  This  could  have  the 
consequence that fewer companies perform a PEF analysis for fear of 
a negative result that they would then have to disclose. This is contrary 
to the objectives of the Green Claims Initiative in preparation.  

This option would require sellers, based on information provided by 
manufacturers, to inform consumers by way of a warning statement at 
the  point  of  sale  when  a  product  has  not  been  the  subject  of  an 
environmental  life  cycle  assessment  in  accordance  with  the  Product 
Environmental  Footprint  method  or  when  no  good  environmental 
performance could be confirmed from this assessment.  
Concretely, this option would inform consumers in this situation that 
“the  product  has  no  proof  of  good  environmental  performance  in 
accordance with applicable EU legislation”.  

This  option  has  been  discarded  at  an  early  stage  given  the  limited  
added value in terms of consumer information (due to length of such 
warning  statement;  the  complications  it  may  have  with  several 
languages  in  the  EU;  uncertain  consumer  understanding  etc.)  while 
being intrusive and creating costs for companies.  
This  option  would  require  companies  to  provide  information  to 
consumers on one single key environmental characteristic, i.e. related 
to  climate  change.  It  would  contain  information  on  greenhouse  gas 
emissions considering the life cycle of the product, expressed in CO2 
equivalents or alternatively require companies to warn consumers in 
case  the  product  within  its  product  category  has  a  high  impact  on 
climate change (again expressed in CO2 equivalents).  

This option has been discarded at an early stage as it would provide 
incomplete  and  potentially  misleading  information  to  consumers, 
given the focus on only one single environmental impact. By omitting 
many  other  relevant  environmental  impacts,  it  would  also  be 
inconsistent  with  the  use  of  the  Product  Environmental  Footprint 
method, as foreseen in the upcoming Green Claims Initiative, which 
covers more (16) impacts than just those on climate change. 

Obligation  to  warn 
is  “no 
when  there 
proof” 
good 
of 
environmental 
performance  of  the 
product 

Obligation  to  inform 
on  one  single  key 
environmental 
characteristic, 
related 
change 

i.e. 
to  climate 

249 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 

Problem 2: Consumers face misleading commercial practices related to 
the sustainability of products 

2.1. 

Sub-problem 2.1: Consumers are sold products that do not last as long 
as they could and consumers expect 

For this sub-problem, the following options have been discarded at an early stage: 

Options discarded at an early 
stage 
General 
of  
planned/intentional/deliberate 
obsolescence  

ban 

Rationale  

this 

option, 

Under 
planned/intentional/deliberate 
obsolescence would be horizontally banned. Such a ban  
would cover practices, like for instance:  
-  the  practice  of  incorporating  intentionally  product 
design  features  for  the  specific  purpose  of  reducing  the 
durability of the product; 
- 
a 
device/component  into  the  product,  which  renders  the 
product unusable after a certain period of time or a certain 
number of uses. 

deliberately 

introducing 

practice 

the 

of 

This option has been discarded at an early stage given the 
expected  difficulties  in  enforcement,  mostly  due  to 
documented  challenges  in  proving  intent  as  highlighted 
by  the  various  stakeholder  groups  consulted  and  the 
French experience. 

However,  Option  2.1.B  ‘Ban  of  certain  identified 
practices  associated  with  early  obsolescence’  would  be 
able  to  address  planned  obsolescence  practices  without 
the  need  for  market  surveillance  authorities  to  prove 
intent.  

Setting minimum lifetimes per 
product category 

This  option  would  have  consisted  in  setting  minimum 
lifetimes per product category. 

It has been discarded from the outset as it is, by its nature, 
too product specific and it would require the development 
of product-specific methodologies and requirements. It is 
thus  not  fit  for  a  horizontal  consumer  law  instrument, 
which  does  not  regulate  the  design  of  specific  products 
and  which  focuses  primarily  on  the  obligations  of  the 
seller towards the consumers.  

It  is  more  appropriate  to  consider  such  an  option  under 
product  design  rules.  For 
the  upcoming 
Sustainable  Product  Initiative  will  consider  specific 
options  to  improve  the  sustainability  and  circularity  of 
certain product categories.  

instance, 

250 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. 

Sub-problem  2.2:  Consumers  are  faced  with  the  practice  of  making 
unclear or not well-substantiated green claims (“Greenwashing”) 

For this sub-problem, the following option has been discarded at an early stage: 

Options discarded at an 
early stage 
Pre-approval 
environmental 
via an EU body 

of 
claims 

Rationale  

Under  this  option,  environmental  claims  would  have  had  to  be 
pre-approved  by  an  EU  body  to  check  their  reliability  and 
truthfulness265.  

This option has been discarded given the expected high costs of 
setting  up  and  running  such  EU  body  while  providing  only 
limited added value compared to the alternatives identified which 
can be done via targeted amendments of consumer law.   

265 BEUC, Getting rid of greenwashing, Restoring consumer confidence in green claims, 2020. 

251 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 12: CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROBLEMS FOR CONSUMERS, THE MARKET AND 

THE ENVIRONMENT 

1. 

Consequences of Problem 1 

1.1.  Consequences for consumers 

A lack of reliable information at the point of sale about a product’s environmental 
sustainability prevents consumers from translating their desire to purchase sustainable 
products into green purchasing decisions. This shows a non-realised potential to increase 
the share of consumers who choose more sustainable products. 

Having information about the environmental characteristics of products is important 
for  about  50%  of  consumers  who  report  that  they  want  to  purchase  products  that  are 
environmentally-friendly266,  many  of  whom  are  willing  to  pay  a  premium  for  more 
environmentally friendly products267. The number of consumers affected by this sub-
problem  is  at  least  equal  to  the  number  of  consumers  who  would  like  to  receive  the 
information and consider that the information is insufficient, i.e., 60%268 of consumers or 
about 225 million European consumers. Based on the consumer survey carried out for this 
Impact  Assessment,  around  164  million  of  those  would  even  be  willing  to  pay  for  this 
information (EUR 5.32 on average). The same consumer survey also suggests that 56% of 
consumers, i.e., 210 million consumers when extrapolated, would use the information to 
buy “more environmentally friendly products”.  

Equally, consumers are very interested in having information about the lifespan of 
goods:  as  mentioned,  92%  of  European  consumers  (e.g.  around  344  million  when 
extrapolated) would like to receive such information. Based on the consumer survey for 
this Impact Assessment,  around 74% would even be willing to pay for this information 
(EUR 5.88 per year on average). Consumers also say that durability is one of the most 
important decision factors for them when buying goods such as dishwashers, vacuum 
cleaners, televisions, smartphones or coats (with quality and price)269. Evidence also shows 
that  a  significant  share  of  consumers  is  interested  in  purchasing  products  with  longer 
lifespans.  A  recent  behavioural  experiment  showed270    that  when  durability 
information is provided at the point of sale, consumers are almost three times more 
likely  to  choose  products  with  the  longest  durability  on  offer.  Another  behavioural 
experiment271  showed  that  adding  a  label  informing  consumers  of  the  relative  lifespan 
performance of all products on the market could increase the market share of the products 
with the best lifespan, decrease the market share of the products with the worst lifespan, 
and increase the overall lifespan score of products purchased. Another study272 found that 
across the tested products (which included washing machines, vacuum cleaners and coffee 
makers), products with a label showing a longer lifespan than the competing products were 
chosen an average of 13.8% more. Moreover, the same study showed many consumers 
are  willing  to  pay  more  for  products  that  have  a  longer  durability:  90%  of  the 
consumers surveyed indicated that they would be willing to pay an additional EUR 

266 European Commission, Consumers Conditions Scoreboard, 2019, p. 57. 
267 77% of the respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay more for environmentally-friendly products if 
they were confident that the products are truly environmentally-friendly. 
European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 367, 2015, p. 8. 
268 European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 367, 2015, p. 73. 
269 European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, 2018, p 146. 
270 European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, 2018, p 157-158. 
271 Dessart, F. J., Marandola, G., Hille, S., Thøgersen, J. (2021). Comparing the impact of positive, negative, and graded 

sustainability labels on purchase decisions. JRC Science for Policy Brief. JRC127006. 

272 European Economic and Social Committee, The influence of lifespan labelling on consumers, 2016.  

252 

 
 
                                                           
102  for  a  dishwasher  with  two  additional  years  of  lifespan.  A  similar  outcome  was 
demonstrated  by  another  behavioural  study  which  showed  that  when    durability  
information  was present, respondents were on average willing to pay €19 more for high 
(versus  low)  durability  products273.  Other  recent  evidence  reveals  that  an  increasing 
number of consumers are willing to know the expected lifespan of a product. 274 

Evidence from the consumer survey for this IA indicates that 80% of consumers (about 
300  million  consumers)  would  be  interested  in  receiving  information  about  the 
reparability  of  goods  (e.g.  availability  of  repair  services,  spare  parts,  repair  manuals, 
repair scoring). Around 52% of those would be willing to pay for this information (EUR 
5.53 per year on average). 50%-55% of all consumers (187-205 million consumers) would 
use such information to buy “products that would be easier to repair”. Further evidence 
shows  that  consumers  are  generally  willing  to  pay  more  for  products  with  better 
reparability275.  Evidence  from  behavioural  experiments  suggest  that  when 
reparability information, in particular repair scoring in this case, is provided at the 
point  of  sale,  it  is  effective  in  guiding  consumers  towards  more  reparable 
products276,277.  

Studies  also  show  that  a  significant  share  of  consumers  is  interested  in  repairing 
broken  goods  (instead  of  replacing  them)278.  However,  about  36%  consumers  do  not 
generally repair defective products279. The fact that respondents did not know how to 
repair it/where to get it repaired (i.e. due to lack of repair manual and information about 
the availability of repair services) and the unavailability of spare parts play a role in the 
decision not to repair a broken good. 

1.2.  Consequences for the market 

Manufacturers do not improve the environmental performance of their products 

The  fact  that  consumers  cannot  compare  and  choose  products  based  on  their 
environmental  sustainability  characteristics  leads  to  manufacturers  having  fewer 
incentives to improve the environmental sustainability performance of their products280.  

The  market  share  of  goods  with longer  lifespans  is  likely  to  be  lower  than  what  it 
would be if consumers would have information on the lifespan of goods281. A study of 

273 European Commission,  Consumer market study to support the fitness check of EU consumer and marketing law, 
2017, p. 431-435.  
274  Rüdenauer  INA,  Siddharth  Prakash,  Öko-Institut  e.V.,  Ökonomische  und  ökologische  Auswirkungen  einer 
Verlängerung  der  Nutzungsdauer  von  elektrischen  und  elektronischen  Geräten,  study  commissioned  by 
Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (vzbv), 2020. 
275  Consumers  indicated  being  ready  to  pay  EUR  29  –  EUR 54  more  for  vacuum  cleaners;  EUR  83  – EUR  105  for 
dishwashers; EUR 77 – EUR 171 for televisions; EUR 48 – EUR 98 for smartphones; and EUR 10-30 for coats.  
ibid, p. 129.  
276  European  Commission,  Consumer  study  on  the  impact  of  reparability  information  formats  on  consumer 
understanding and purchase decisions, 2020, p. 57.  
277 European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, 2018, p 160. 
278 European Commission, Eurobarometer, 2013, p. 55.  
279 The most important reasons for not repairing products is the high price of repairs, followed by the preference for a 
new product, and the feeling that the old product was simply obsolete or out of fashion. 
Depending on the product type, between 5 and 10% of consumers surveyed did not repair the product because they did 
not know where to get it repaired and between 1 and 7% because of the unavailability of spare parts.   
European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ engagement in the circular economy, 2018, p. 86.  
280 Producers who have better environmental products and could communicate about them may find themselves in unfair 
situation (e.g. high costs) compared to other manufacturers who wrongfully claim the environmental characteristics for 
their products – c.f. problem 2 of this IA.  
281 The share of products that could be replaced by an alternative that would last at least one additional year is estimated 
to be around 3% depending on the product category. See Annex 5.  

253 

 
 
                                                           
the  European  Parliament282  concludes  that  providing  information  on  expected  and/or 
guaranteed lifespan can bring net positive impacts to the Single Market, to consumers and 
to  the  environment.  Furthermore,  in  a  related  area,  the  experience  from  mandatory  EU 
energy labelling for household appliances also shows how consumer information – when 
clear and easy to compare - can trigger positive and large-scale market change.283 

As consumers are not able to take into account the reparability of goods in their decisions, 
the market share of easy-to-repair goods and, consequently, the demand for repair services 
are potentially lower than they would be if information on reparability would be available 
to  consumers284.  In  addition,  producers  have  fewer  incentives  to  improve  their 
commitments  regarding  availability  of  repair  services,  spare  parts  and  repair 
manuals and their software update/upgrade policies. 

Manufacturers and sellers risk increased compliance costs due to fragmented legislation  

In the absence of EU-wide harmonised rules to ensure consumers are informed about a 
product’s  environmental  sustainability, 
reparability, 
manufacturers and sellers operating cross-border may also face different legal regimes with 
which they must comply285, thereby increasing their compliance costs and limiting their 
ability to compete on a level-playing field. This legal fragmentation also prevents an 
effective and coherent enforcement of consumer protection across the EU286. 

its  durability  or 

including 

1.3.  Consequences for the environment 

The  negative  environmental  impacts  of  consumption,  including  climate  impacts,  are 
increased 

This lack of reliable information on products’ sustainability ultimately leads to negative 
environmental  and  climate  impacts  of  European  consumption,  as  consumers  cannot 
make their consumption choices based on this information. This further leads to negative 
health,  social  and  economic  impacts  on  consumers.  As  a  result,  market  shares  of  more 
information  on  products’ 
environmentally  friendly  products  are 
environmental sustainability was available to consumers.  
For example, rough estimates287 show that in case 5% more environmentally sustainable 
products were purchased, this would lead to a reduction of CO2 emitted of 1.1 MtCO2e 
per  year  (EUR  40  million).  In  case  the  demand  is  shifted  towards  products  that  have  a 
longer lifespan of one more year, this would lead to  a reduction of CO2 emitted of 1 
MtCO2e per year (EUR 34 million). In case the demand is shifted towards products that 

lower 

than 

if 

282  European Parliament,  Study on the introduction of a lifespan guarantee in the proposed online sales and digital 
content Directives, 2017.  
283 The mandatory EU Energy Label has been a key driver for helping consumers choose goods which are more energy 
efficient. For instance, while roughly two-thirds of refrigerators and washing machines sold in 2006 were labelled as 
class  A,  over  90%  of  those  sold  in  2017  were  labelled  A+,  A++  or  A+++.   https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-
change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-
ecodesign/about_en  
284 An increase of 1% of the use of the maintenance, repair, rental services etc. sectors, has an effect of 6.3 billion EUR.  
European Parliament, A Longer Lifetime for Products: Benefits for Consumers and Companies, 2016, p. 10. 
285 France, Sweden, Slovenia, Finland and Portugal are among the countries who have already enacted specific legislation 
so that consumers are informed about certain aspects of the durability and reparability of products. Belgium and Italy are 
in the process of doing so. See Annex 6 for further details.   
286  Evidence  from  the  survey  in  the  context  of  the  supporting  study  indicates  some  degree  of  support  by  the  public 
authorities for a number of EU-level information requirements to be enforced. 
European  Commission,  Impact  Assessment  supporting  study:  Study  on  Empowering  Consumers  Towards  the  Green 

Transition, July 2021. 

287 Further details on the calculation of these estimates can be found in Annex 5. They rely on several assumptions and 
should thus mainly serve as pointers. 

254 

 
 
                                                           
are easier to repair (and thus can last one year longer), the estimated impact would be of 
0,4 MtCO2e (EUR 13 million).  

2. 

Consequences of Problem 2 

2.1.  Consequences for consumers 

Consumers face detriment and make sub-optimal choices 

While  consumers  may  replace  some  goods  before  the  end  of  their  lifespan  (sometimes 
exacerbated by marketing campaigns leading consumers to perceive existing products as 
out-of-date), some recent studies suggest that consumers would like their goods to last 
longer than they currently do288,289. Consumers face additional costs related to the need 
to  repair  and/or  replace  the  goods  earlier  than  they  could  reasonably  expect  when  they 
purchased the good290,291.  

Moreover, consumers may choose a product over other alternatives based on misleading 
claims, sometimes paying a premium in order to buy a supposedly more environmentally 
friendly product. Thus, greenwashing affects all consumers that purchase “green products” 
some of which even pay a premium,  i.e., 26% to  40% of  consumers or 74-150 million 
consumers.  

Similarly, non-transparent and non-credible sustainability labels can harm consumers 
because they purchase products based on the assumption that all labels are credible when 
they are not292. However, the extent to which this affects consumers (and notably those 
wishing to purchase more sustainable products and ready to pay a premium) is difficult to 
quantify given the variety of labels.  

Consumers do not trust the sustainability information provided to them 

Evidence shows that consumers are increasingly confused about green claims.  61% of 
consumers  state  that  they  find  it  difficult  to  understand  which  products  are  truly 
environmentally  friendly,  and  44%  indicate  that  they  do  not  trust  this  type  of 
information293.  Furthermore,  trust  in  environmental  claims  is  decreasing294.  Surveys295 
show that while 75% of EU consumers indicated they would buy green products, only 17% 
had actually done this in the month prior to the survey. This was because of a lack of trust 
in  the  environmental  information  provided  by  producers  and  retailers,  among  other 
reasons.  

Consumers also appear unable to understand the meaning of sustainability labels, and 
make  no  distinction  between  non-certified  (self-declarations)  and  third-party  certified 
labels296. The proliferation of sustainability labels and their lack of transparency, reliability 

288 Bakker, C. A., Schuit, C. S. C., et al., The long view: Exploring product lifetime extension, 2017, p. 21. 
289 Séré de Lanauze, G., Siadou-Martin, B., Durée de vie anormalement courte du produit : Effets sur la relation à la 
marque et perceptions de responsabilité. Gestion 2000, volume 32(3), 2015, p.43-65. 
290 BEUC, Premature obsolescence – when products fail too quickly, 2018, p. 1. 
291 In Germany, it is estimated that consumers could save EUR 110 every month. 
Christian Kreiß, Geplanter Verschleiß, 2014, p. 63.  
292  Brécard,  D.,  Consumer  confusion  over  the  profusion  of  eco-labels:  Lessons  from  a  double  differentiation 
model. Resource and energy economics, 37, 2014, pp. 64-84. 
293 European Commission, Consumer Market Study on Environmental claims for non-food products, 2014, p. 19-20. 
294 The EU28 overall trust level in environmental claims in 2018 was 4% lower than the one in 2016. 
European Commission, Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, 2019, p. 59. 
295 European Commission, Consumer Market Study on Environmental claims for non-food products, 2014, P. 32. 
296 European Commission, Consumer Market Study on Environmental claims for non-food products, 2014, p. 20. 

255 

 
 
 
                                                           
or  comprehensibility  was  considered  as  an  obstacle  to  more  sustainable  consumption 
behaviour by 27% of the respondents to the OPC.  

2.2.  Consequences for the market 

Uneven level playing field between companies (e.g. between manufacturers and between 
sellers) 

Unfair practices and imperfect information to consumers will harm the Single Market, as 
goods with a shorter lifespan may be cheaper to produce and are therefore competing 
with other goods in price, as consumers are not aware of the differences in the lifespan 
of goods.  

Greenwashing also harms the functioning of the Single Market as it allows products 
and companies to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors through the provision of 
unfounded or misleading information. As about 35% of companies undertake a life-cycle 
assessment study to assess the environmental impacts of (some of) their products297, it may 
be assumed that at least these companies are faced with unfair practices from those which 
provide false or misleading information without any justifications. Greenwashing practices 
can  also  further  stimulate  the  import  and  production  of  unsustainable  products  through 
supply chains in third-countries where lower environmental or consumer protection rules 
would apply. It will also drive unsustainable business practices of companies in the Single 
Market. 

Risks of increased compliance costs for manufacturers and sellers due to fragmented 
legislation and proliferation of labels 

The multitude of labelling schemes also means that companies often adhere to more than 
one scheme and thus incur additional costs. 22% of sellers consulted in a 2019 study 
used at least three sustainability standards or codes for sourcing sustainable products298. 
This may explain why, out of all the problems looked at in this Impact Assessment, the 
proliferation of labels was considered the most problematic for businesses in the OPC. In 
addition to the impact on costs, the lack of harmonisation of rules can also become a 
barrier for companies to sell their goods and services in other markets (where different 
rules may exist), thus hindering the Single Market.  

Furthermore,  ass  some  Member States  are enacting specific legislation to  address early 
obsolescence,  companies  wishing  to  be  active  in  those  Member  States  face  increased 
compliance costs299.   

2.3.  Consequences for the environment 

The  need  to  replace  products  more  frequently  and  the  reduced  potential  for 
circularity  (i.e.  re-sale  and  reuse)300,301  linked  to  early  obsolescence  lead  to  higher 

297 COWI/ECOFYS, Support for potential policies implementing the Environmental Footprint methods, 2019.  
298 International Trade Centre for the European Commission, The European Market for Sustainable Products – The retail 
perspective on sourcing policies and consumer demand, 2019, p. 18. 
299 France has already criminalised planned obsolescence. Belgium, Italy and Portugal are in the process of introducing 
new legislation to tackle planned obsolescence. See Annex 6 for further details.  
300 European Environment Agency, Circular by Design – products in the circular economy, 2017, p. 7.  
301 For example, extending the lifetime of all washing machines, notebooks, vacuum cleaners and smartphones in the EU 
by just one year would save around 4 MtCO2 annually by 2030, the equivalent of taking over 2 million cars off the roads 
for a year. European Environmental Bureau 

256 

 
 
 
                                                           
environmental impacts of consumption, estimated at 1,874 MtCO2e (EUR 64 million)302 
per year.  

The  fact  that  products  offered  and  purchased  in  the  Single  Market  are  not  as 
environmentally friendly as presented, leads to negative environmental impacts (i.e., 
the  difference  between  the  environmental  impact  of  the  purchased  product  based  on 
misleading  claims  and  the  environmental  impact  of  the  product  that  would  have  been 
purchased in the absence of greenwashing). The consequence of this practice is estimated 
at 1.4 MtCO2e (EUR 50 million) per year.  

Whilst  sustainability  labels  can  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  environment,  their 
proliferation and their various degrees of robustness and transparency can lead to distrust 
among  consumers  and  hamper  their  effectiveness  in  guiding  them  towards  more 
sustainable consumption choices. These losses are, however, difficult to quantify as many 
sustainability labels and logos cover other sustainability aspects that are not related to the 
environment pillar of sustainability.  

Overall,  these  practices  increase  the  negative  environmental  and  climate  impacts  of 
consumption.  

302 Possible environmental impacts of premature obsolescence, defined as failures that happen before the product reaches 
60% of its expected lifespan and as a consequence of one year of this practice, in 2019 prices. Further details on the 
estimates presented in this section can be found in Annex 5. 

257 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 13: ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT SCOPE FOR PROVIDING DURABILITY/REPARABILITY 

INFORMATION 

Possible 
product 
scopes 

Availability of 
evidence about the 
existence and the 
size of the problem 
(limited durability 
and reparability) 

Availability of 
evidence on 
consumer 
expectations 
regarding better 
durability and 
reparability beyond 
legal guarantee 
period 

Availability of evidence on 
the interest of consumers on 
information on durability and 
reparability 

Primary 
data: 
surveys, 
interviews, 
focus 
groups, 
behavioural 
experiments 

Proxy: 
availability of 
commercial 
guarantees in 
the market 

Level of 
uncertaint
y 
regarding 
expected 
benefits of 
providing 
informatio
n on 
durability 
and 
reparabilit
y per 
product 
type 

 

 

 

 

Low 

Evidence available 
and stakeholder views 
on some key types of 
goods in this product 
category, such as 
smartphones and 
laptops, suggest the 
existence of problems 
with limited durability 
and reparability in this 
product category   

Main source: 
preparatory study 

Evidence available 
and stakeholder views 
on some key types of 
goods in this category, 
such as smartphones 
and laptops, suggest, 
to some extent, 
expectations of 
consumers regarding 
better durability and 
reparability  (in this 
product group some 
evidence also suggests 
that consumers 
replace goods in order 
to have the latest 
model/technology) 

Main source: 
preparatory study 

Narrow 
product 
scope (i.e. 
all goods 
with digital 
content303) 

 Evidence 
available and 
stakeholder 
views on 
some key 
types of 
goods in this 
category, 
such as 
smartphones 
and laptops, 
suggest 
certain 
consumer  
interest of 
receiving 
information 
on durability 
and 
reparability in 
this product 
group 

Main 
sources: 
preparatory 
study, the EC 
“Behavioural 
Study on 
Consumers’ 
Engagement 
in the 
Circular 
Economy”304,  
2019 Market 
Monitoring 

Desk research 
and mystery 
shopping 
exercises 
indicates some 
presence of 
commercial 
guarantees in 
the market in 
this product 
group 

Main sources: 
preparatory 
study;  2015 
commercial/leg
al guarantee 
study307 

The level of 
uncertainty 
was 
considered 
low as there 
is sufficient 
evidence on 
the size of 
the problem 
and on the 
expectation
s and needs 
of 
consumers 
to assess 
benefits of 
measures 
related to 
providing 
information 
on 
durability 
and 
reparability 
per product 
scope 

Source. 

303  Goods  with  digital  elements  are  any  tangible  movable  items  that  incorporate  or  are  inter-connected  with  digital 

content. 

304 Europe, L.E., Europe, V.V.A., Ipsos Opinion-Infometrie, ConPolicy GmbH and Trinomics, B.V., 2018. Behavioural 

study on consumers' engagement in the circular economy. Publications Office of the European Union. 

307 DG JUST, Ipsos-London Economics-Deloitte consortium, 2015. Consumer market study on the functioning of legal 

and commercial guarantees for consumers in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union. 

258 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
survey305, 
EESC “The 
influence of 
lifespan 
labelling on 
consumers”.
306 

 

 

 

 

Low 

Evidence available 
and stakeholder views 
covering a significant 
number of key types 
of goods in this 
category such as the 
ones mentioned under 
the narrow product 
scope as well as 
washing machines, 
refrigerators, 
microwaves/electric 
ovens, vacuum 
cleaners, dishwashers, 
coffee machines, 
irons, mixers, kettles, 
electric 
shavers/razors/trimme
rs, hair dryers,  
demonstrates the 
existence of problems 
with limited durability 
and reparability in this 
product category 

Main source: 
preparatory study 

Evidence available 
and stakeholder views 
covering a significant 
number of key types 
of goods in this 
category such as the 
ones mentioned under 
the narrow product 
scope as well as 
washing machines, 
refrigerators, 
microwaves/electric 
ovens, vacuum 
cleaners, dishwashers, 
coffee machines, 
irons, mixers, kettles, 
electric 
shavers/razors/trimme
rs, hair dryers, 
suggests expectations 
of consumers 
regarding higher 
durability and 
reparability of a 
significant share of 
type of goods in this 
category 

Main source: 
preparatory study 

Medium 
product 
scope (i.e. 
all energy-
using 
goods308) 

Desk research 
and mystery 
shopping 
exercises 
indicates some 
presence of 
commercial 
guarantees in 
the market in 
this product 
group 

Main sources: 
preparatory 
study;  2015 
commercial/leg
al guarantee 
study312 

The level of 
uncertainty 
was 
considered 
low as there 
is sufficient 
evidence on 
the size of 
the problem 
and on the 
expectation
s and needs 
of 
consumers 
to assess 
benefits of 
measures 
related to 
providing 
information 
on 
durability 
and 
reparability 
per product 
scope 

Evidence 
available 
covering a 
wide variety 
of large 
household 
appliances, 
small 
household 
appliance and 
IT and 
electronic 
goods 
suggests high 
consumer  
interest of 
receiving 
information 
on durability 
and 
reparability in 
this product 
group 

Main 
sources: 
preparatory 
study, the EC 
“Behavioural 
Study on 
Consumers’ 
Engagement 
in the 
Circular 
Economy”309,  
2019 Market 
Monitoring 
survey310, 
EESC “The 

305  Available 

at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/consumers/consumer-protection/evidence-based-consumer-

306  EESC 

policy/market-monitoring/market-monitoring-2019-factsheets-market_en 
on 

lifespan 
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/16_123_duree-dutilisation-des-produits_complet_en.pdf 

(2016):  The 

consumers, 

influence 

labelling 

of 

2016.  Available 

at: 

308 Energy-using goods are goods depending on energy input (electricity, fossil fuels and renewable energy sources) to 

work as intended. 

309 Europe, L.E., Europe, V.V.A., Ipsos Opinion-Infometrie, ConPolicy GmbH and Trinomics, B.V., 2018. Behavioural 

study on consumers' engagement in the circular economy. Publications Office of the European Union. 

310  Available 

at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/consumers/consumer-protection/evidence-based-consumer-

policy/market-monitoring/market-monitoring-2019-factsheets-market_en 

312 DG JUST, Ipsos-London Economics-Deloitte consortium, 2015. Consumer market study on the functioning of legal 

and commercial guarantees for consumers in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union. 

259 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
influence of 
lifespan 
labelling on 
consumers”.
311 

 

 

 

 

Limited evidence 
available 
demonstrating the 
existence of problems 
with limited durability 
and reparability in this 
product category, e.g. 
with data available 
covering a only few 
product types not 
included in the 
previous two 
categories (e.g., sofas 
and mattresses) 

Limited evidence 
available 
demonstrating 
consumer expectations 
on 
durability/reparability 
in this product group, 
with data available 
covering only a few 
product types not 
included in the 
previous two 
categories (e.g., sofas 
and mattresses) 

Main sources: 
preparatory study, 

Main sources: 
preparatory study, 

Desk research 
and mystery 
shopping 
exercises 
indicate some 
presence of 
certain 
commercial 
guarantees in 
the market in 
this product 
category 

Limited 
evidence 
available on 
consumer  
interest on 
receiving 
information 
on durability 
and 
reparability in 
this product 
group, with 
data available 
covering only 
a few product 
types not 
included in 
the previous 
two 
categories 
(e.g., sofas 
and 
mattresses) 

Main 
sources: 
preparatory 
study, 

Medium-
High 

The level of 
uncertainty 
was 
considered 
medium-
high as 
there is 
limited 
evidence on 
the size of 
the problem 
and on the 
expectation
s and needs 
of 
consumers 
to assess 
benefits of 
measures 
related to 
providing 
information 
on 
durability 
and 
reparability 
per product 
scope 

 

 

 

 

High 

Limited evidence 
available for the 
category as a whole, 
with data available 
covering only a few 
product types that are 
not included in the 
previous three 
categories (e.g., 
garments and shoes) 

Limited evidence 
available for the 
category as a whole, 
with data available 
covering only a few 
product types that are 
not included in the 
previous three 
categories (e.g., 
garments and shoes) 

Desk research 
and mystery 
shopping 
exercises 
indicates the 
limited 
presence of 
certain 
commercial 
guarantees in 
the market in 
this product 
category 

Limited 
evidence 
available on 
consumer 
interest on 
receiving 
information 
on 
reparability in 
this product 
group, with 
data available 
covering only 
a few product 
types not 
included in 
the previous 
three 
categories 
(e.g., 
garments and 
shoes) 

The level of 
uncertainty 
was 
considered 
high as 
there is 
insufficient 
evidence on 
the size of 
the problem 
and on the 
expectation
s and needs 
of 
consumers 
to assess 
benefits of 
measures 
related to 
providing 
information 
on 

Wide 
product 
scope (i.e. 
all goods 
with 
assembled 
parts that 
move 
relative to 
one another 
(e.g., most 
furniture, 
some 
suitcases, 
some non-
energy 
using toys, 
bicycles, 
etc)  

Very wide 
product 
scope (i.e. 
all 
consumer 
goods 
except 
consumable
s and 
fast-movin
g ones, e.g. 
cloths, 
pans, bed 
linen) 

311  EESC 

lifespan 
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/16_123_duree-dutilisation-des-produits_complet_en.pdf 

(2016):  The 

consumers, 

influence 

labelling 

on 

of 

2016.  Available 

at: 

260 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
durability 
and 
reparability 
per product 
scope 

Main 
sources: 
preparatory 
study, the EC 
“Behavioural 
Study on 
Consumers’ 
Engagement 
in the 
Circular 
Economy”313,   

Conclusion: 

As  shown  in  the  table,  evidence  regarding  the  existence  of  limited  durability  and 
reparability),  consumer  expectations  regarding  durability  and  reparability  of  goods 
(beyond  the  legal  guarantee  period),  and  consumer  interest  in  receiving  information  on 
durability and reparability, is mostly available for the medium product scope (i.e. energy 
using products); for the remaining types of products far less evidence is available. 

Furthermore,  the  availability  of  evidence  can  be  considered  a  proxy  for  the  size  of  the 
problem (and of the expected benefits if addressed) for the various product groups as it is 
reasonable to expect that research tends to focus on the most relevant problems/product 
categories. 

For this reason, while the available evidence allows for robust conclusions on the benefits 
of possible measures (to address sub-problem 1.2 and sub-problem 1.3) for the medium 
product scope, it is insufficient to soundly confirm them for a wider product scope).  

Given the aforementioned lack of evidence to cover a “Very wide product scope”” or a 
“wide product scope”, two alternatives were assessed in the scope of the preparatory study: 
a) cover only the product category for which a wealth of evidence is available (i.e., energy-
using products); or b) opt for a wider product scope and establish an EU body responsible 
for defining and updating the criteria that determine whether a given product is exempt. A 
screening of the political, operational and financial feasibility of the two options clearly 
showed  many  obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  option  b,  including  the  high  costs  of 
setting  up  and  running  such  an  EU  body  and  also  the  potential  overlap  with  the  SPI 
initiative. Therefore, it was decided to restrict the product scope to all energy-using 
products  when  considering  those  options  to  address  sub-problems  1.2  and  1.3  for 
which a product scope is defined.  

313 Europe, L.E., Europe, V.V.A., Ipsos Opinion-Infometrie, ConPolicy GmbH and Trinomics, B.V., 2018. Behavioural 

study on consumers' engagement in the circular economy. Publications Office of the European Union. 

261