COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Smoke- and Aerosol-Free Environments replacing Council Recommendation 2009/C 296/02
Date: 2024-09-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: cancer, carcinogenic substance, disease prevention, occupational health, public awareness campaign, public health, smoking, tobacco industry, toxic substance

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 17.9.2024  SWD(2024) 56 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT           Proposal for a Council Recommendation  on Smoke- and Aerosol-Free Environments     replacing Council Recommendation 2009/C 296/02 {COM(2024) 55 final} - {SWD(2024) 55 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2 

2.  OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 2 

2.1. 
2.2. 

2.3. 

2.2.1. 
2.2.2. 
2.2.3. 

CALL FOR EVIDENCE.............................................................................................................................. 2 
TARGETED CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................................. 2 
Targeted surveys........................................................................................................................... 4 
Targeted interviews ...................................................................................................................... 4 
Focus Groups ............................................................................................................................... 5 
CONSULTATION OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................... 5 
Protection of people from second-hand smoke and aerosols ....................................................... 5 
Economic impact of the proposed revision ................................................................................... 7 
Impact on smoking cessation and expansion of smoke- and aerosol-free policies .............. Error! 

2.3.1. 
2.3.2. 
2.3.3. 
Bookmark not defined. 
2.3.4. 

Impact on enforcement and compliance ....................................................................................... 8 
2.4.  OTHER CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 8 

Disclaimer:  This  document  includes  contributions  made  by  stakeholders  for  the  Call  for 
Evidence on the revision of the Council Recommendation on Smoke-Free Environments and 
successive targeted consultation activities. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the 
official  position  of  the  Commission  or  its  services.  Responses  to  the  consultation  activities 
cannot be considered as a representative sample of the views of the EU population. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION  

This  report  presents  outcomes  of  the  consultations,  which  were  conducted  to  support  the 
revision  of  the  2009  Council  Recommendation  on  Smoke-free  Environments1,  including 
namely: 

1)  207 contributions in response to a Call for Evidence on the ‘Have your say’ platform 

from 22 June until 20 July 20222; 

2)  Outcomes  of  targeted  consultations  gathering  input  from  the  following  relevant 
stakeholder groups: 1) representatives of Member State competent authorities; 2) civil 
society organisations (CSOs); 3) Economic Operators (EOs) in the tobacco and related 
products  industry;  4)  representatives  from  the  HORECA  sector;  4)  other  relevant 
stakeholders  such  as  those  in  education  and  sports  associations.  The  targeted 
consultation  activities  consisted  of  a  targeted  survey,  targeted  interviews  and  focus 
groups; 

3)  Input  and  feedback  from  Member  States  representatives  of  national  competent 
authorities  who  are  members  of  the  Expert  Group  on  Tobacco  Policy  (EU  Member 
States plus Iceland and Norway) who participated in a meeting of the Expert Group on 
Tobacco Policy organised on 3 May 20233; 

4)  Input from the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC-2). 

2.   OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

2.1.  Call for Evidence 

The Call for Evidence resulted in 207 responses. Responses were received from citizens, Non-
Governmental  Organisations  (NGOs),  business  associations  and  organisations,  consumer 
organisations, research institutions and pubtlic authorities. The majority of NGOs (total of 28 
contributions),  academic/research  institutions  (total  of  6  contributions),  and  Member  State 
public  authorities  (total  of  4  contributions)  largely  support  the  objectives  of  the  proposed 
updates  to  the  2009  Council  Recommendation.  In  particular,  their  responses  supported  the 
inclusion of emerging products (also mentioning nicotine-free products) in the scope and the 
expected  positive  impact  on  tackling  the  rising  popularity,  advertising  and  use  of  certain 
emerging  products.  Moreover,  the  importance  of  ensuring  comprehensive  and  comparable 
smoke-free  policies  across  Member  States  was  highlighted.  The  feedback  received  from 
businesses  (18  from  companies/businesses  and  20  from  business  associations)  and  citizens 
(101 contributions) largely opposes any updates to the Recommendation mainly on the basis 
of  the  claim  that  the  harm  caused  by  exposure  to  second-hand  aerosols  originating  from 
emerging products cannot be considered on the same level as the harm caused by exposure to 
second-hand smoke. 

2.2.  Targeted consultations 

The  targeted  consultations  carried  out  between  March  and  May  2023  consisted  of  surveys, 
interviews  and  focus  groups  targeting  relevant  stakeholders:  1)  representatives  of  Member 
State competent authorities; 2) CSOs; 3) EOs in the tobacco and related products industry; 4) 
representatives from the hospitality sector (HORECA); 4) other relevant stakeholders such as 

1 Council Recommendation of 30 November 2009 on smoke-free environments (OJ C 296, 5.12.2009, p. 4) 
2 Have Your Say. Smoke-free environments- updated recommendation. Call for evidence. 22 June 2022- 20 July 2022 
3 Meeting of the Expert Group on Tobacco Policy. 3 May 2023, with the participation of 26 Member States, Iceland and Norway. Flash Report  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
those in education and sports associations. The stakeholders who were involved in the targeted 
consultations were identified through a stakeholder mapping exercise. 

Stakeholders were selected based on the following criteria: 

•  Relevance: their standing and level of knowledge within the field of tobacco control 

and, more specifically, smoke- and aerosol-free environments. 

•  Representativeness: their contribution to the objective of ensuring an appropriate level 

of representativeness of a wide range of views and interests. 

Below, Table 1 shows the stakeholders which were identified and the planned response targets 
and Table 2 shows the timing and total number of responses received. 

Table 1 Stakeholder Mapping with the planned response targets 

Questionnaires 

Sub-categories 

Survey 

Interviews 

27 (1 per 
Member State) 

Member State 
authorities 

Ministry of Health 

Public Health 
Institute/Agency 

Public Health NGO  

Environmental NGO 

Civil Society 
Organisations 

Research institutes and 
academia 

Economic 
Operators in the 
tobacco and 
related products 
industry 

HORECA sector 

Other relevant 
stakeholders 

Consumer 
organisations  

Associations of 
companies operating in 
the tobacco and related 
industry 

Manufacturers of 
tobacco and related 
products 

Retailers/Sellers of 
tobacco and related 
products 

HORECA sector 
associations 

HORECA employees’ 
federations 

Prisons associations 

Sports entities 

3 

 10 

 10 

 10 

7 

4 

10 

10 

10 

2 

3 

5 

 6 

 0 

 0 

1 

4 

3 

0 

2 

Focus 
groups 

NA 

8 

8 

6 

NA 

NA 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Education sector 
associations 

9 

Table 2 Timing and response rate achieved during the targeted consultations 

Activity 

Timing 

Response rate achieved 
Member States representatives: 89% (24 out of 27) 

Civil society organisations: 62% (23 out of 37) 

Surveys 

23 February - 17 

Economic operators in the tobacco industry: 83% 

March 2023 

(19 out of 23) 

Interviews 

29 March – 14 April 

2023 

Focus 

Groups 

18, 19, 21 April 2023 

Hospitality sector: 30% (3 out of 10) 

Others: 8% (1 out 13) 

100% (22 out of 22) 

Civil society organisations: 88% (7 out of 8) 

Economic operators in the tobacco industry: 88% 

(7 out of 8) 

Hospitality sector: 33% (2 out of 6) 

2.2.1.  Targeted surveys 

All five stakeholder groups were targeted for the surveys: 1) representatives of Member State 
competent  authorities;  2)  CSOs;  3)  EOs  in  the  tobacco  and  related  products  industry;  4) 
representatives  from  the  HORECA  sector;  5)  other  relevant  stakeholders  such  as  those  in 
education  and  sports  associations.  The  questionnaires  were  formulated  in  English  and  had 
varying lengths ranging from 23 – 28 questions. They were structured to have a general part 
common for all stakeholder groups and a specific part unique to each stakeholder group. The 
questionnaires consisted of closed and open-ended questions and were only accessible through 
a unique link. The response rates, as outlined in Table 2, varied depending on the stakeholder 
group. 

2.2.2.  Targeted interviews 

Following  the  targeted  survey,  targeted  interviews  were  conducted  with  the  aim  of 
complementing the findings which emerged from the surveys. Four stakeholder groups were 
targeted for the interviews: 1) representatives of Member State competent authorities; 2) CSOs; 
3)  EOs  in  the  tobacco  and  related  products  industry;  4)  representatives  from  the  HORECA 
sector.  The  interviews  were  carried  out  online  in  English.  The  interviewees  received  a 
preliminary set of questions 48 hours before the interview allowing them to prepare in advance. 
The response rate for the targeted interviews was 100% as outlined in Table 2. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3.  Focus Groups 

Following the targeted interviews, focus groups were conducted to further discuss key issues 
and  complement  the  set  of  findings  which  emerged  from  the  targeted  interviews.  Three 
stakeholder groups were targeted for the focus groups: 1) CSOs; 2) EOs in the tobacco industry; 
3)  representatives  in  the  HORECA  sector.  Three  focus  groups  were  conducted  online  in 
English. The stakeholders received preliminary focus group guides allowing them to prepare 
in advance. The response rate for this consultation activity varied depending on the stakeholder 
group and is outlined in Table 2. 

2.3.  Consultation outcomes 

2.3.1.  Protection of people from second-hand smoke and aerosols 

Extension of coverage to include emerging products 

Regarding emerging products, the consultation activities included questions, among others, on 
the  potential  health,  social  and  economic  impact  of  extending  the  scope  of  the  Council 
Recommendation  to  include  emerging  products  such  as  electronic  cigarettes  and  heated 
tobacco products. 

Across all three targeted consultation activities, representatives from Member States and CSOs 
consider that the extension of coverage of emerging products in the Council Recommendation 
would have a positive impact in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and aerosols. CSOs 
(78%, 18 out of 23) and representatives from Member States (96%, 23 out of 24) held the view 
that the extension of the Council Recommendation would result in the increased protection of 
children and young people from harmful exposure to second-hand smoke and aerosols. This 
same point was highlighted by both stakeholder groups during the interviews. CSOs further 
highlighted that the extension would help to reduce indoor pollution and avoid conditions like 
asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and allergies which are associated to 
the  use  of  emerging  products.  Furthermore,  they  held  the  position  that  the  inclusion  of 
emerging  products  in  a  revised  Council  Recommendation  would  indirectly  contribute  to 
reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and aerosols beyond smoke and aerosol-free spaces 
by contributing to the de-normalisation of the use of these products. 

Stakeholders  representing  economic  operators  (68%,  13  out  of  29)  in  the  tobacco  industry 
generally did not agree that an extension of the Council Recommendation would have positive 
impacts. Throughout all three consultation activities, economic operators often chose the don’t 
know/can’t answer option to questions on health, social and economic impact of the revision. 
In interviews, they considered that scientific evidence was ‘weak’ with regard to the risk of 
exposure to aerosols from emerging products and, in their view, further restrictions to these 
products would take consumers away from what they see as ‘less harmful products’. Therefore, 
during the interviews they supported a differentiated approach for the inclusion of emerging 
products in the revised Recommendation, whereby the smoke-free rules are not applied with 
the same level of strictness in the Recommendation as for traditional tobacco products. This 
differentiated approach was not supported by any other stakeholder group. 

Three  responses  were  received  from  representatives  in  the  HORECA  sector  in  the  targeted 
surveys, two responses in the interviews and two organisations participated in the focus group. 
Throughout these consultation activities the views among the representatives of the HORECA 
sector differed considerably and depended on whether the HORECA organisations represent 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the employees or employers. While the organisations that represent employees in the HORECA 
sector  agree  in  large  part  with  the  opinions  from  CSOs,  the  organisations  that  represent 
employers in the HORECA sector tended to present their views in a similar fashion to EOs 
from the tobacco industry. 

Finally,  one  response  was  received  in  the  targeted  survey  from  an  organisation  categorised 
under  “other  relevant  stakeholders”4.  It  was  supportive  of  the  revision  of  the  Council 
Recommendation and is of the position that the extension of the Council Recommendation to 
include emerging products, especially in spaces where children are present, will have a positive 
health and social impact. 

Extension of scope to include outdoor spaces 

Regarding outdoor spaces, the consultation activities included questions, among others,  on the 
potential  health,  social  and  economic  impact  of  extending  the  coverage  of  the  Council 
Recommendation  to  possibly  include  specific  outdoor  spaces  such  as  the  corresponding  
outdoor  spaces  of  service  establishments  like  restaurants,  bars  and  cafés,  corresponding 
outdoor  spaces  of  workplaces,  public  transport  stations  and  stops,  outdoor  spaces  of 
educational facilities, public playgrounds, public buildings, outdoor sports grounds, beaches, 
cars when children are present. 

Representatives  from  Member  States  (96%,  23  out  of  24)  and  CSOs  (83%,  19  out  of  23) 
consider that the extension of the Council Recommendation to include the mentioned outdoor 
spaces would have beneficial effects on health and the environment. This position was also 
reflected during the interviews and focus group discussions. In the interviews CSOs explained 
that these measures  would  result in  environmental  benefits  by reducing  polluting emissions 
and  waste.  During  the  focus  group,  CSOs  highlighted  the  role  of  the  extension  to  outdoor 
spaces in further protecting children and young people. The response on the possible impact of 
including the mentioned outdoor spaces from the HORECA sector was less clear and divided 
between agreeing with the potential benefits of the extension and having a neutral stance.  
Some  EOs  from  the  tobacco  industry  (32%,  6  out  of  19)  support  a  revision  of  the  Council 
Recommendation to outdoor spaces when children and adolescents might be present. However, 
for the majority of the considered outdoor spaces, EOs do not agree with the extension of the 
Council Recommendation to include them. 

The  response  from  the  organisation  categorised  under  “other  relevant  stakeholders”  was 
generally  supportive  of  the  fact  that  the  inclusion  of  the  above-mentioned  specific  outdoor 
spaces in the revised Council Recommendation will positively contribute to the protection of 
people from exposure to second-hand smoke and aerosols. 

2.3.2 

Impact on smoking cessation and expansion of smoke- and aerosol-free policies 

Representatives from Member States (66% of survey respondents) and CSOs (78% of survey 
respondents)  support  the  view  that  that  the  revision  of  the  Council  Recommendation  will 
contribute  to  reducing  the  initial  uptake  of  tobacco/emerging  product  consumption.  In 
particular,  during  the  interviews,  it  was  highlighted  that  the  revision  of  the  Council 
Recommendation is an important step in the de-normalisation of smoking and use of emerging 
products, which is particularly important to also curb the initial uptake among young people 

4  The  ‘other  stakeholders’  category  includes  education  sector  associations,  sports  associations  and  prisons  associations.  Overall,  14 
stakeholders under this category were contacted to participate in the survey and one reply was received. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  increase  the  general  awareness  of  the  harms  of  consuming  and  exposure  to  emerging 
products.  CSOs believe  that the revision of the  Council Recommendation would encourage 
and  support  Member  States  in  expanding  smoke/aerosol-free  policies  at  the  national  level. 
They  also  elucidated  that  the  sustainability  aspect  of  a  revised  recommendation  should  be 
highlighted acknowledging the environmental impact of smoke/aerosols and the waste created 
by  the  consumption  of  these  products.  A  revision  would  have  the  potential  to  contribute 
towards  the  reduction  of  littering  caused  by  the  disposal  of  single-use  plastics  such  as 
disposable single-use devices or cigarette buds. 

In  contrast,  EOs  from  the  tobacco  industry  did  not  consider  that  a  revised  Council 
Recommendation  would  support  the  cessation  of  use  of  traditional  tobacco  and  emerging 
products.  According  to  them  a  revision  would  not  contribute  to  the  de-normalisation  of 
smoking and use of emerging products. Rather the inclusion of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco 
products in a revised Recommendation would remove “less harmful products”, thus depriving 
smokers who want to stop using traditional tobacco products for “safer alternatives”. Most EOs 
from  the  tobacco  industry  do  not  consider  that  a  revision  of  the  Council  Recommendation 
would  encourage  or  support  Member  States  in  expanding  their  smoke-  and  aerosol-free 
policies. 

2.3.3  Economic impact of the proposed revision 

EOs from the tobacco industry did not directly respond to questions concerning the economic 
impact of this initiative and often mentioned that they are unable to give such estimates on both 
the revisions regarding products and outdoor spaces. 42% (8 out of 19) of survey respondents 
selected the don’t know/can’t answer option on the questionnaire, while another 42% (8 out of 
19) responded that the economic impact of the revision would be negative. During the targeted 
interviews, some EOs considered that the revision would slow the growth rate of the e-cigarette 
industry and that the potential inclusion of shisha in the recommendation might be harmful to 
the sector. However, no or limited evidence was provided in support of this. 

The responses from representatives of the HORECA sector differed depending on whether their 
organisation  represents  HORECA  businesses  or  employees.  The  respondents  representing 
businesses highlighted their concerns about losing customers, the fact that they might have to 
potentially  spend  resources  on  adapting  to  new  measures  and  that,  in  the  case  of  the  hotel 
sector, there could be a shift of their customers towards the short-term rental sector which could 
create unfair business competition. To the contrary, the HORECA organisations that represent 
employees  considered  the  impact  neutral  based  on  experiences  in  ‘Scandinavia’  on  the 
inclusion  of  outdoor  spaces  resulting  in  no  major  economic  issues.  According  to  them,  the 
current concerns resemble those from 2009 ahead of the adoption of Council Recommendation 
2009/C 296/02, which did not materialise. 

According to CSOs, across all three targeted consultation activities, the revision of the Council 
Recommendation would potentially result in considerable savings in  health costs and waste 
collection costs. 33% (8 out of 24) Member States representatives reported, in the survey, that 
the economic benefits resulting from the revision of the Council Recommendation (for both 
the inclusion of emerging products and specific outdoor spaces) would be large and substantial. 
None  of  the  Member  States  representatives  expected  substantial  enforcement  and/or 
implementation  costs,  67%  (16  out  of  24)  reported  that  the  implementation  costs  for  the 
inclusion of emerging products in the revised Recommendation would be minor while 54% (13 
out  of  24)  reported  minor  costs  in  the  case  of  including  outdoor  spaces  in  the  revised 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation.  Several  Member  States  already  implemented  smoke-free  measures  to 
varying degrees. In addition, Member States can absorb the administration costs within their 
current  budgets,  thus  the  proposed  revisions  would  have  little  impact  on  their  budget.  This 
point was complemented during the interviews by the consideration that the expense is already 
assumed by the civil service or that there would be no administrative costs as it would only be 
an extension of the already implemented measures. 

2.3.4 

Impact on enforcement and compliance 

A majority of CSOs (75%, 17 out of 23) held the view that a revised Council Recommendation 
will  simplify  the  enforcement  of  smoke-  and  aerosol-free  rules  in  Member  States.  CSOs 
pointed  out  that  ensuring  compliance  can  be  challenging  due  to,  among  others,  industry 
lobbying as well as the rapid industry reaction to regulatory changes. Both representatives from 
Member  States  and  CSOs  consider  that  allowing  or  continuing  the  use  of  indoor  smoking 
rooms as designated smoking areas would compromise effective compliance and potentially 
promote opportunistic behaviour to circumvent smoke- and aerosol-free policies. Additionally, 
it was highlighted that potential enforcement costs would be compensated by fines made for 
breaches and that the long-term health and social benefits would outweigh the potential short-
term costs. 

Representatives from the HORECA sector expressed their concern about compliance issues 
preferring a full and comprehensive to a partial ban in order to avoid grey areas for compliance 
and enforcement. For HORECA representatives a specific challenge consists of determining 
the precise area under which the smoke- and aerosol-free rules should be enforced and who 
takes  care  of  the  litter  disposed  outside  of  these  areas.  Different  suggestions  were  made  to 
address  challenges  such  as:  1)  developing  enforcement  and  implementation  guidelines  (for 
Member  States  and  HORECA);  2)  information/sensitisation  campaigns  (for  the  public), 
including visual infographics, to raise awareness and inform the public on the benefit of the 
measures  for  public  health;  3)  training  sessions,  on  the  effective  implementation  and 
enforcement for HORECA staff. CSOs suggested the inclusion of evaluation, assessment, and 
monitoring mechanisms to identify possible opportunistic behaviours to circumvent the rules 
in place and inform future proofing, in order to address potential new market developments 
and trends. 

2.4   Other consultation activities 

Further  to  the  targeted  consultation  activities,  the  Expert  Group  on  Tobacco  Policy  was 
consulted during a meeting on 3 May 2023. The leaders of work package 8 of Joint Action on 
Tobacco  Policy  were  consulted  in  writing.  The  work  packages  focus  on  smoke-free 
environments and tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship legislation in Europe. 

During  the  Expert  Group  Meeting  many  representatives  of  Member  States  competent 
authorities highlighted that they have already implemented similar measures at their national 
level. They suggested to future-proof the text of the revised Recommendation to minimise the 
possibilities  of  it  being  easily  circumvented  in  the  future.  All  representatives  stressed  the 
importance of protecting people from second-hand smoke and aerosols, especially children and 
young people. A revision of the Council Recommendation would be an important step towards 
this  protection.  The  revision  was  expected  to  contribute  towards  the  de-normalisation  of 
smoking and use of emerging products which would have an influence in reducing the uptake 
of  smoking  and  use  of  emerging  product  and  encourage  cessation.  Several  Member  States 
representatives  recommended  that  a  revised  Council  Recommendation  should  be  as 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
comprehensive  as  possible  and  should  also  include  products  that  do  no  emit  smoke  and 
aerosols. This would be an important step to tackle products that do not emit smoke or aerosols 
but  that  still  contain  nicotine  and  other  products  which  bear  the  risk  of  addiction,  which  is 
particularly important in the case of young people. A revised Council Recommendation would 
result in environmental benefits through contributing towards reducing littering from cigarette 
buds and disposable emerging products. Member States representatives raised that compliance 
and enforcement challenges might arise as a result of a revised Recommendation. 

Similarly, the Joint Action on Tobacco Control largely supported the inclusion of emerging 
products and specific outdoor spaces in a revised Council Recommendation. They noted that 
the environmental impact of smoking and the use of emerging products should be considered 
and that a revised Council Recommendation could contribute to reduce environmental harm. 
The inclusion of certain outdoor spaces would be relevant also given that smoking traditional 
tobacco products in natural areas is a well characterised risk factor for fires which creates a 
hazardous situation for environmental safety. 

9