COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Review of the application of Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (Web Accessibility Directive)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: European standard, Internet site, access to information, computer applications, digital technology, facilities for people with disabilities, harmonisation of standards, mobile phone, public institution, software

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.12.2022  SWD(2022) 411 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Review of the application of Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (Web Accessibility Directive) {SWD(2022) 410 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION 

Review of the application of Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications 
of public sector bodies (Web Accessibility Directive) 

1.  BACKGROUND 

The  Web  Accessibility  Directive  (EU)  2016/2102  (‘the  WAD’) 1  requires  the  websites  and 
mobile applications of public sector bodies to be more accessible to users, in particular persons 
with  disabilities.  It  entered  into  force  on  22 December 2016.  According  to  Article  13  of  the 
Directive,  the  Commission  must  carry  out  a  review  of  the  Directive  and  its  implementing 
decisions 2 and this review must take into account: (i) the Member States’ monitoring reports; 
(ii)  the  use  of  the  Directive’s  enforcement  procedure;  and  (iii)  a  review  of  technological 
advances that could make accessibility easier for some types of content that was excluded from 
the  Directive.  The  evaluation  covers  the  first  three  years  of  the  application  of  the  Directive 
(2018-2021). 

2.  METHODOLOGY 

The  main  findings  and  lessons  learned  that  are  presented  in  this  document  rely  on  an  external 
supporting  study.  The  study  comprised  a  literature  review,  analysis  of  the  Member  States’ 
reports  on  the  outcome  of  the  monitoring  and  the  use  of  the  enforcement  procedure  under  the 
Directive,  a  public  consultation  as  well  as  targeted  consultations  with  the  most  relevant 
stakeholder groups, including the Web Accessibility Directive Expert Group with Member State 
representatives.  The  Directive  and  its  implementing  decisions  were  reviewed  according  to  five 
criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value. 

A detailed assessment of economic, social, and environmental impacts is limited, mainly due to 
the  difficulties  of  quantifying  and  monetising  both  costs  and  benefits  of  web  accessibility, 
inclusion  and  non-discrimination,  as  well  as  the  limited  availability  of  relevant  data. 
Nonetheless,  the  overall  evaluation,  findings  and  conclusions,  based  on  alternative  proxy  data 
and the triangulation of findings from various sources, are considered robust and thorough. 

1 Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility 
of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies, OJ L 327, 2.12.2016, p. 1–15. 
2  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2018/1523  establishing  a  model  accessibility  statement,  OJ  L  256,  12.10.2018; 
Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1524 establishing a monitoring methodology and arrangements for reporting, OJ 
L 256,  12.10.2018;  and  Implementing  Decision  (EU) 2018/2048  on  the  harmonised  standard  for  websites  and 
mobile applications, OJ L 327, 21.12.2018. 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.  FINDINGS 

The evaluation shows that the measurable obligations of the Directive have been fulfilled by the 
Commission  (adoption  of  implementing  acts,  harmonising  a  standard)  and  that  Member  States 
have  all  carried  out  relevant  actions  (transposition,  setting  up  monitoring,  reporting  and 
enforcement bodies, and awareness-raising and accessibility improvements). Nonetheless, there 
is still much practical progress to be made for all public sector websites and mobile applications 
to be fully accessible to persons with disabilities, regardless of the nature of the disability. Most 
actions to date have been targeted at those with visual impairment, and work is continuing within 
the standardisation bodies on the requirements for those with cognitive impairment. 

It should also be noted that the wording of the Directive calls for “more accessible” websites and 
mobile  applications  (not  absolutely  accessible),  but  offers  limited  tools  for  measuring  progress 
within the “partially compliant” category which covers most content in scope. Websites and apps 
can comply with the Directive, even if they do not fully meet all the accessibility criteria of the 
harmonised European standard, provided the Accessibility Statement describes alternative routes 
to  technically  inaccessible  content.  With  the  foundations  now  in  place,  and  MS  efforts  to 
improve  accessibility,  it  seems  likely  that  the  trend  to  “more  accessible”  websites  and  mobile 
apps,  both  in  terms  of  quantity  and  quality,  will  continue,  particularly  given  the  new 
requirements of the European Accessibility Act 3, due for application in 2025. As accessibility is 
a process, not a one- off exercise, Member States in which public sector bodies have embedded 
web accessibility in their digitalisation and communication strategies, fare better. 

a)  Effectiveness 

In light of the evaluation criteria, the WAD is going in the right direction towards achieving 
its objectives. Firstly, and as can be seen in the external study supporting the review, the WAD 
effectively  improved  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  providing  web  accessibility 
services by harmonising rules and stimulating demand. Secondly, the poor level of accessibility 
of public sector websites and mobile applications before adoption has improved, although many 
people  with  disabilities  that  participated  in  the  public  consultation  still  find  public  sector 
websites  and  mobile  applications  difficult  to  use.  The  main  factors  in  making  the  WAD  a 
success  were:  (i)  the  introduction  of  the  feedback  and  enforcement  mechanisms;  (ii)  the 
arrangements for regular monitoring and reporting; and (iii) the implementation of accessibility 
statements. 

b)  Efficiency 

The  findings  of  the  review  suggest  that  the  Directive  was  designed  and  implemented 
efficiently,  and  that  the  use  of  EU  resources  was  adequate  and  proportionate.  Although  most 
public  sector  bodies  said  that  the  Directive  had  introduced  additional  economic  costs,  the 
evidence collected shows that accessibility-related costs do not constitute a major barrier to 
implementing the Directive. There were only very few cases where public sector bodies used the 
Directive’s disproportionate-burden clause. 

3  Directive  (EU)  2019/882  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  the  accessibility 
requirements for products and services, OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70–115. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
c)  Coherence 

Based on stakeholders’ feedback and on the review of relevant international and EU policies, the 
Directive  is  coherent  internally,  and  shows  no  overlaps  or  inconsistencies  with  other  EU 
policies  or  laws  related  to  web  accessibility,  such  as  the  European  Accessibility  Act  or  the 
Commission’s  strategy for the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  2021-2030. The WAD is  also 
externally  coherent  and  in  line  with  international  treaties  and  measures  to  support  digital  and 
social inclusion for people with disabilities. 

d)  Relevance 

Considering  the  evolving  European  and  international  policy  context,  the  Directive  is  still 
relevant  for  its  main  stakeholders.  The  EU’s  commitment  to  the  digital  transformation, 
encouraging the ongoing digitalisation of the public sector and use of online public services, has 
increased  since  the  current  Commission  took  office,  and  was  further  highlighted  during  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. The 2030 digital compass sets ambitious targets for 2030 in this context, 
which confirms the continued need for accessible websites and mobile applications. 

e)  EU added value 

The  review  suggests  that  there  is  substantial  EU  added  value  in  improving  the  online 
accessibility  of public services and thereby increasing  the digital  inclusion of users.  For many 
Member States, the adoption of the Directive meant the introduction of national laws on web 
accessibility that did not previously exist. Without the Directive, Member States alone would 
not  have  reached  the  level  of  web-accessibility-related  activity,  including  awareness  raising 
within the public sector, demonstrated in the Member State accessibility monitoring reports. And 
there  would  have  been  no  harmonised  technical  requirements,  so  continuing  national 
fragmentation of the single market. 

f)  Findings on monitoring, enforcement and technological advances 

In the light of the requirement of Article 13 of the Directive, the following key findings can be 
observed. 

  25  Member  States  submitted  monitoring  reports  to  the  Commission.  Major  findings  from 
the  analysis  of  the  reports  were:  (i)  that  cross-border  provision  of  accessibility  tools  is 
available, and can be expected to increase; and (ii) that training programmes and awareness-
raising activities promoted by the Directive were conducted by almost all Member States that 
submitted a report. 

  While  all  Member  States  have  set  up  a  formal  enforcement  procedure  and  nominated  a 
designated enforcement body, the use of the Directive’s enforcement procedure has not yet 
reached its full potential. Users are often unaware of the procedure or do not feel confident in 
using it. 

  The  review  of  technological  advances  showed  that  automated  or  efficient  and  easy-to-
implement means through artificial intelligence and machine learning is increasingly used in 
tools relevant for digital accessibility, helping to make accessibility easier for some types of 
content currently excluded from the scope of the Directive. 

3 

 
 
4.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Considering these findings, the evaluation identifies the following key lessons learned that might 
be taken into consideration for future policy initiatives related to web accessibility. 

  There is a shortage of digital accessibility expertise in both the public and private sectors, 
which makes it challenging for public sector bodies to procure accessible solutions or recruit 
experts.  There  is  potential  for  people  with  disabilities  to  train  and  work  as  digital 
accessibility experts. 

 

Interviewed stakeholders mentioned the importance of: (i) increasing training opportunities; 
(ii) compulsory accessibility modules for ICT (information and communication technology) 
curricula  in  universities;  and  (iii)  professional  certifications,  including  for  people  with 
disabilities aiming to work as accessibility experts. 

  The  feedback  and  enforcement  mechanisms  have  not  yet  reached  their  full  potential. 
Public sector bodies and other organisations reported being aware of these mechanisms,  but 
end-users  reported  only  limited  awareness  and  usage  of  them.  Raising  awareness  and 
promoting the use of the feedback and enforcement mechanisms can benefit all stakeholders, 
both  by  pointing  out  accessibility  issues  to  public  sector  bodies  and  by  making  content 
accessible to the users. 

  The  comparability  of  the  monitoring  results  from  the  Member  States  is  limited.  The 
flexibility in the monitoring methodology and reporting criteria, offered in the Directive and 
its  implementing  acts,  and  in  particular  the  lack  of  a  common  definition  of  the  three 
compliance  statuses  (non-,  partially-  or  fully  compliant),  makes  it  difficult  to  directly 
compare accessibility across Member States. 

4