COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Ex post Evaluation Consumer Programme 2014 - 2020
Date: 2026-01-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, administrative cooperation, consumer information, consumer law, consumer movement, consumer policy, product safety, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.1.2026  SWD(2026) 16 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Ex post Evaluation Consumer Programme 2014 - 2020 {SWD(2026) 10 final}  
 
 
The  Consumer  Programme  2014-2020  was  designed  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  consumer 
protection, empower consumers, and place them at the center of the EU’s internal market. Its 
overarching  objective  was  to  build  consumer  trust  and  support  cross-border  trade, 
contributing  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable,  and  inclusive  growth.  The 
Programme had a total budget of EUR 194.4 million and funded 270 projects in the form of 
grants  and  573  projects  in  the  form  of  procurement  in  all  EU  Member  States,  as  well  as 
Norway  and  Iceland,  targeting  challenges  such  as  digitalisation,  increasing  market 
complexity,  and  consumer  vulnerabilities.  The  Programme  also  served  as  a  vital  tool  to 
harmonise  consumer  protection  policies  across  the  EU,  ensuring  a  consistent  approach  in 
addressing key issues and reducing disparities among Member States. 

Context and Objectives 

The Programme was implemented between 2014 and 2020, as a continuation of the Consumer 
Programme 2007-2013. It responded to evolving consumer issues, such as the rapid growth of 
e-commerce,  the  globalisation  of  supply  chains,  and  the  increasing  use  of  digital  tools  by 
traders. The Programme’s specific objectives included: 

1.  Consolidating  and  improving  product  safety  through  enhanced  market  surveillance 

and risk analysis. 
2.  Boosting  consumer 

information  and  education  while  supporting  consumer 

organisations to improve their capacities. 

3.  Strengthening consumer rights and improving access to alternative dispute resolution 

(ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms. 

4.  Supporting  enforcement  by  fostering  cooperation  between  national  authorities  and 

providing tools to ensure compliance with EU consumer law. 

The  Programme’s  design  also  recognised  the  importance  of  addressing  challenges  faced  by 
vulnerable consumers, including those with lower digital literacy, limited financial resources, 
or specific  accessibility needs. Its multifaceted approach  allowed for targeted actions across 
different sectors and population groups, ensuring no consumer was left behind. 

Key Findings 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Consumer  Programme  2014–2020  found  that  the  Programme 
was  broadly  effective,  efficient,  relevant,  and  coherent,  and  demonstrated  a  clear  EU  added 
value,  particularly  in  areas  such  as  product  safety,  consumer  enforcement,  and  cross-border 
cooperation.  However,  the  evaluation  also  highlighted  important  methodological  and  data 
limitations, including incomplete project documentation, inconsistent indicator reporting, and 
an overreliance on output-based metrics, which constrained the ability to fully assess longer-
term impacts. These shortcomings were compounded by a lack of baseline and counterfactual 
data,  making  it  difficult  to  measure  behavioural  or  systemic  changes  attributable  to  the 
Programme. 

Effectiveness 

The Programme was broadly effective in achieving its objectives across key areas: 

•  Safety Gate/RAPEX played a central role in improving product safety across the EU 
by  enabling  faster  information  exchange  and  coordinated  enforcement.  However, 
uneven  Member  State  capacity  and  enforcement  inconsistencies  continued  to  hinder 
impact in some cases. 

1 

 
 
 
•  Support  to  EU-level  and  national  consumer  organisations,  in  particular  BEUC, 
helped  strengthen  policy  input,  coordination,  and  information-sharing,  including  on 
issues  affecting  vulnerable  consumers  such  as  energy  poverty  and  online  fraud. 
Nonetheless,  the  impact  of  such  activities  on  consumer  behaviour  and  outcomes 
remains difficult to quantify. 

•  Consumer  information  and  education  initiatives  showed  mixed  effectiveness. 
Campaigns  often  met  engagement  targets  but  lacked  long-term  behavioural  impact, 
partly  due  to  limited  integration  into  national  systems.  Consumer  Law  Ready  and 
Consumer  PRO  were  rated  highly  effective  in  capacity  building,  while  Consumer 
Classroom had limited uptake and faced technical and structural challenges. 

•  Behavioural and market studies informed EU-level consumer policy and legislation 
(e.g. Digital Markets Act, Consumer Credit Directive). These studies were valued for 
their strategic insights and supported smarter regulation. 

•  ADR and ODR mechanisms increased visibility and awareness of redress options but 
achieved  limited  practical  results.  The  ODR  platform,  despite  high  traffic,  had  very 
low-resolution rates due to low trader participation and was eventually discontinued. 
ADR systems remained fragmented across Member States. 

•  CPC  Network  and  ECCs  contributed  substantially  to  dispute  resolution  and 
consumer  support,  handling  hundreds  of  thousands  of  cases.  However,  some 
performance indicators stagnated or declined, reflecting rising workloads and the need 
for additional resources to sustain performance. 

Efficiency 

In  the  absence  of  a  full  cost-benefit  analysis,  available  evidence  indicates  that  several 
Programme components were implemented efficiently: 

•  The  Safety  Gate/RAPEX  system  was  cost-effective  in  preventing  consumer  harm, 

especially during the COVID-19 crisis. 

•  Behavioural  studies  and  support  to  BEUC  delivered  valuable  insights  and  policy 

input at proportionate cost. 

•  While ADR funding had low uptake and ODR performance fell short, existing ADR 
systems offered low-cost solutions that could be further optimised through digital tools 
and coordination. 

•  ECC-Net  provided  strong  returns  on  investment,  resolving  a  large  volume  of  cross-

border complaints and supporting consumer trust. 

Coherence 

The  Programme’s  objectives  and  activities  were  largely  coherent,  both  internally  and  with 
broader  EU  policy  frameworks  such  as  the  Consumer  Agenda  2012  and  the  Digital  Single 
Market  Strategy.  However,  synergies  between  ECC-Net,  CPC,  and  ADR  bodies  could  be 
improved,  and  coherence  with  sectoral  legislation  or  national  initiatives  was  not  always 
clearly articulated. 

Relevance and EU added value 

The Programme remained relevant to the evolving needs of consumers, particularly in light of 
digitalisation,  cross-border  trade,  and  the  growing  complexity  of  online  markets.  It  offered 
clear  EU  added  value  by  enabling  cross-border  enforcement  and  cooperation  (e.g.  CPC 

2 

 
 
sweeps, ECC support); by delivering economies of scale through joint actions (e.g. CASP); by 
supporting  consistent  application  of  EU  law  across  Member  States;  and  by  strengthening 
consumer  trust  and  market  surveillance  in  areas  beyond  the  reach  of  national  programmes 
alone. 

Lessons learned  

The  evaluation  identified  several  key  areas  for  improvement  to  enhance  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency, and impact of consumer protection programmes: 

•  Improved data collection and  record-keeping: Systematic and comprehensive data 
recording  must  be  ensured  for  all  funded  actions,  including  grants  and  procurement. 
Incomplete documentation and gaps in project-level reporting significantly limited the 
ability to assess impacts. Future programmes should mandate more consistent record-
keeping and archiving practices. 

•  Stronger outcome and impact indicators: Monitoring frameworks should go beyond 
output  metrics  and  include  qualitative  indicators  that  assess  effectiveness  and 
behavioural impact. For example, the influence of BEUC’s advocacy or the concrete 
consumer benefit of ECC and CPC actions should be systematically captured. 

•  Targeted  and  sustainable  communication  campaigns:  Communication  and 
education efforts should prioritise high-impact topics, such as air passenger rights or 
green  claims,  tailored  to  specific  audiences  and  vulnerable  groups.  School-level 
programmes  should  be  expanded  and  mainstreamed  to  embed  consumer  education 
early on. 

•  Strategic  use  of  behavioural  studies:  Both  large-scale  and  targeted  behavioural 
studies have proven valuable. Their continued use should be coupled with  improved 
access to underlying data for researchers, national authorities, and civil society actors 
to strengthen evidence-based policymaking. 

•  Technological  readiness  and  innovation:  Future  actions  should  anticipate  digital 
developments,  particularly  in  e-commerce.  AI-supported  tools,  such  as  chatbots  or 
large language models, could enhance consumer complaint handling, provide real-time 
trend analysis, and support enforcement authorities in detecting systemic risks. 

•  Reinforced  cross-border  collaboration:  More  structured  cooperation  between 
consumer  protection  actors,  ECCs,  CPC  authorities,  ADR  bodies,  and  consumer 
organisations, should be promoted. Joint planning, staff exchanges, and shared digital 
tools can improve coherence, efficiency, and knowledge transfer. 

•  Strengthening  the  Safety  Gate/RAPEX:  Under  the  new  General  Product  Safety 
Regulation,  the  Safety  Gate  could  be  further  enhanced  through  improved  risk 
assessment training, better integration of emerging risks (including digital and mental 
health-related aspects), and reinforced capacity to handle a growing number of alerts 
while maintaining high data quality. 

•  ADR system improvements:  To overcome fragmentation, especially  among smaller 
ADR entities, funding rules should be simplified and co-financing thresholds adapted. 
Greater  networking  and  thematic  coordination  between  ADR  bodies  should  also  be 
encouraged, with stronger Member State engagement.  

•  Enhanced  enforcement  capacity:  The  CPC  Network’s  effectiveness  can  be  further 
improved  by  expanding  training,  updating  IT  tools,  and  prioritising  cross-border 
enforcement. Persistent resource disparities across Member States should be addressed 
to ensure consistent application of consumer law across the EU. 

3