Annexes to COM(2012)698 - GREEN PAPER An integrated parcel delivery market for the growth of e-commerce in the EU - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2012)698 - GREEN PAPER An integrated parcel delivery market for the growth of e-commerce in the EU. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2012)698  |
| date | November 29, 2012 |
· Within certain limits, the delivery sector is also subject to the provisions of the Services Directive[46] and respective national implementing measures. The following two aspects deserve special emphasis in the context of e-commerce and related delivery:
o In its Article 20, paragraph 2, the Services Directive contains a prohibition of discrimination in the general conditions of access to a service on the basis of the place of residence of the recipient. It thus seeks to facilitate the delivery of services on a cross-border basis. On 8 June 2012, the Commission services issued guidance on the application of this obligation of non-discrimination by national authorities[47]. This should result in enhanced transparency on the application of delivery restrictions (in advance of the obligation laid down in Article 8 of the European Consumer Rights Directive) and reduce consumer frustrations when being denied a supply on grounds of residence. The guidance also clarifies that the argument by a business that there are no options for delivery can rarely be invoked as a legitimate reason to refuse supply of a purchased good to a given Member State because of the existence of basic universal postal services.
o Article 22 of the Services Directive, which relates to information requirements for service providers, aims to ensure that particular information is always provided in an easily accessible manner to the service recipients (e.g. name and contact details of the provider; general terms and conditions; price of the service).
· Transport and logistics-related issues at EU and international level are covered by a number of rules, notably in the context of the completion of an internal market for transport, environmental (e.g. de-carbonisation of the supply chain, reducing air pollution from motor vehicles) and security issues. Key policy initiatives are set out in the Commission's White Paper "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area" and the upcoming e-freight initiative[48].
· Other relevant rules that may affect the sector include those dealing with issues such as urban planning, market surveillance, VAT, working conditions, and, in the case of external trade, customs, security and other international issues:
o Urban planning: Recently many Member States have started to introduce specific rules on traffic in city centres (or even beyond these areas) in order to, for example, reduce air pollution as part of their broader policy on better air quality[49] or to preserve their cultural heritage. Such national rules may affect the business solutions of delivery operators who need to adjust their collection and delivery times to time-slots available or even to ensure delivery by other means (e.g. bikes) as urban traffic may be prohibited at certain times.
o Market surveillance for products: the delivery sector is also subject to market surveillance provisions[50]. They apply irrespective of the distribution channel, including distance and electronic selling, and make provision for controls of products entering the EU market by customs and market surveillance authorities. For example, where the market surveillance authorities find that a product entering the EU through a delivery operator does not comply with EU legislation, the authorities must take appropriate action, which may, if necessary, include prohibiting the product's being placed on the market. This has a direct impact on the delivery operator which may have to return the products or which, in some cases, may find themselves in a situation in which the products are destroyed by market surveillance authorities.
o VAT: National VAT rules and rates may have an influence on purchasers and on the choice of delivery services. If a delivery service is part of public postal services, it will be VAT exempt, if not, users of such services (may) have to bear VAT costs[51]. VAT rates for delivery services also vary across Member States. This may have an impact on intra-EU trade flows.
o Working conditions: Delivery sector is traditionally regarded as a labour intensive one, where the largest share of costs relates to the final mile delivery itself. In view of this, many "pay for the delivery service" solutions have developed in the delivery sector (e.g. fixed charge for delivery; pay per piece delivered), depending also on the applicable regulatory framework[52].
o Customs and other international issues: There is variety of other rules resulting from either international trade agreements or EU law, which may have an impact on cross-border delivery solutions, including intra-EU flows. For example, delivery operators exporting to and importing from third countries are subject to customs procedures and security requirements that result from international agreements (e.g. rules of the Universal Postal Union (UPU); rules of ICAO) or from the EU law (e.g. Community Customs Code[53]; Regulation 2320/2002 on air aviation security).
o Furthermore, national postal operators are subject to specific rules of the Universal Postal Union.
Questions: the regulatory and institutional framework for the EU parcel delivery market
1) For the purpose of this Green Paper, 'parcel' is defined in the broadest sense and includes all items weighing up to 30 kg. Are there particular elements which in you view are of crucial relevance for the qualification as 'parcel' in the context of the ambition to achieve a more integrated, well-performing parcel delivery market in the EU[54]?
2) Is, and if so to what extent, the existing framework an obstacle to the creation of a truly integrated European parcel delivery market that meets the needs and expectations of e-retailers, consumers and workers in the sector?
3) What are the top three challenges posed by the regulatory framework? What could be done to help you respond, in the short and long term, to these challenges?
4) Do you consider there are regulatory gaps or a need for additional measures/regulation? If so, please specify.
5. Towards a truly integrated EU parcel delivery market
Based on an analysis of the existing regulatory and institutional framework, the following chapters will focus on three main issues that are considered instrumental in creating an integrated EU parcel delivery market that provides both e-retailers and their customers with the delivery solutions that they need:
· Convenience: Greater convenience and transparency for consumers[55].
· Costs: More cost effective delivery solutions notably cross border.
· Interoperability: A greater level of interoperability between operators along the delivery chain, and better coordination between e-retailers and delivery operators.
In the following sections, different aspects of these three objectives are being tested in order to best identify possible solutions towards improving the current situation. In addition, consideration is given to evaluating the extent to which efficient markets might be able to deliver desired results, or whether changes to the current supervisory or regulatory framework might have to be envisaged.
5.1 Improving consumer experience and convenience 5.1.1 Increase transparency
When shopping on line, one would expect customers to be provided with more information about possible delivery options, their associated prices and service levels, and the practical modalities of delivery (i.e. time and place of delivery)[56].
During and after the delivery process, customers should be able to share their judgement on the actual quality of the delivery services received. More transparent information about the actual performance of deliveries, especially for cross-border purchases, can serve several purposes. First and foremost, it will allow consumers to make more informed choices for their subsequent purchases, choosing – where this is possible – the delivery option that they most trust and that are best suited to their needs. Second, enhanced transparency will also create an incentive for delivery operators to further improve their performance. Third, opening up this delivery "black box" will also help change customer perception of actual delivery performance in cases where such perception has been erroneous or unrealistic.
Different options are being tested to increase transparency with respect to delivery performance for packets and parcels.
Questions: improving consumer experience and convenience- more transparency
5) Information on delivery options and modalities
a) Which information[57] should be made available to consumers on the e-retailer's website (name and contact details of the delivery operator(s), the delivery price, the time and place of delivery, information about complaint handling, track and trace options, return options)?
b) Taking into account the risk of information overload, what could be done to provide consumers at the right moment with clear, transparent and comparable information on delivery?
6) Information on the quality/performance of delivery
a) Performance indicators relate, for instance, to the speed of delivery, the geographic coverage of the delivery operator, delays, damaged or lost items. How can such performance-related information be measured and gathered? Would publishing the results of such performance indicators create added value for consumers? Is there a need to develop standards to monitor such performance levels?
b) Would trust labels (e.g. a certificate given by an industry association that the delivery process of an operator can be trusted as they meet requirements based on best practice) offer a more efficient way to increase consumers' confidence?
c) Would ISO certification of a quality process aiming at efficient delivery be an appropriate tool to increase consumers' confidence?
7) Independent supervision:
Who should take the lead to monitor performance: an industry organisation, an independent body, a regulator?
5.1.2 Providing better service and more safeguards to consumers
While consumers attach importance to the delivery of their parcels, they do not necessarily know much about the type of delivery operator providing delivery services. What matters most to them is, to whom they can turn when they have questions about delivery and who will give them quick answers and accurate information. This is particularly relevant in cross-border situations, which usually involve several delivery operators.
The existing regulatory framework only covers part of the delivery needs of consumers buying on line. The EU Postal Services Directive was not designed for the e-commerce environment, and postal operators are only one of the numerous actors in parcel delivery. The Consumer Rights Directive provides for many safeguards for consumers buying on line such as the notification of price, delivery delays and return process. Specific issues with delivery may remain a concern for consumers and more specific safeguards may be needed.
The current universal postal service only provides a 'safety net' for occasional senders of parcels. Some stakeholders have argued that the growth of e-commerce in the B2C segment and the importance of a convenient last mile delivery might require a new definition (of universal service) which needs to be more closely aligned with on-line consumer expectations. Such a "new" universal service should meet the demands of consumers in terms of a minimum level of convenience – notably in terms of information on the delivery process and options for returning items – and meet the demands of e-retailers in terms of tracking and affordability of their marketing offer. It is argued that, when consumers want features that go beyond such minimum quality standards; markets would offer alternative options and services to meet those more advanced needs.
Questions: increasing consumer experience and convenience – better services and more safeguards
8) Possible need and scope of a universal delivery service for parcels:
a) Is there a need for a new universal service obligation to address the ubiquity, affordability and quality of parcel delivery services?
b) If so, what could be the main characteristics of this 'new' universal service (in terms of service levels, convenience and affordability)?
c) From a delivery operator perspective, do you think a universal (parcel) service would be feasible in terms of cost/profitability? If so, at what level?
d) What would be the best tools to implement such a concept (e.g. guidelines; revision of the Postal Directive; new regulatory instrument with enhanced powers of the national regulatory authorities)?
9) Improving consumer experience
a) Taking into account the existing set of consumer rights, how could consumer concerns and complaints about delivery be addressed most effectively[58]?
b) Do you have any concerns about liability regimes[59] in the event of lost or damaged parcels? What could be done to improve the situation?
c) Could the e-commerce industry and delivery operators come up with more proactive solutions to better respond to consumers? What actions could be taken quickly to improve the situation in the short term? Which medium to long term solutions could be envisaged?
5.2 More cost effective and competitive delivery solutions
Consumers and e-retailers consider generally current price levels to be too high. By contrast, operators argue that they already work with low margins and that sustainable prices are necessary to ensure their long-term economic viability.
5.2.1 Controlling costs
As outlined above, prices for cross-border parcels are considered too high in particular for senders of small volumes. This section explores options that might enhance the cost efficiency of delivery services, which would allow for cost reductions to be passed on to the users of these services.
Cost structures vary considerably between operators, as geographical and individual factors (such as density, volumes, timing constraints) may differ. Published tariffs are typically based on average weight, insurance levels and speed, but these do not necessarily match actual costs incurred by operators[60]. B2C delivery, notably for packets, is considered costly by delivery operators. Solutions envisaged to ensure the success of the first delivery attempt (such as more up-to-date address database, pre-information on delivery) can reduce extra costs. A different design of delivery operations (such as relay points or parcel kiosks) may also have the potential to limit the costs of delivery.
Increased consolidation of small volumes, notably from SMEs, also offers the potential for overall cost reduction. More synergies between operators would generate increased efficiency in a market driven by economies of scale. In the cross border context, they would also enhance the fluidity of parcel flows.
Questions: more cost effective and competitive delivery solutions- controlling costs
10) Different options could be envisaged to control costs:
a) Are there any outstanding examples of, or best practices for alternative delivery solutions allowing for a reduction of costs?
b) Are there any outstanding examples of best practices to increase efficiency[61]?
c) What type of technology can or could reduce the cost of delivery?
d) What could be done, in your view, to remove or alleviate current regulatory constraints without putting the attainment of their underlying objectives at risk[62]?
5.2.2 Competitive but sustainable prices
The need for sustainable tariffs
Parcel operators are concerned by potential increases in costs which might have to be reflected in higher prices to customers. At the same time, consumers are getting used to "free shipping" offers, as a result of which they might underestimate the true operational and societal costs linked to delivery operations.
Large e-retailers are able to negotiate tariffs because of their volumes. The pressure on margins of operators may be significant, whilst these operators need to make new investments to adapt their operations to the demands of e-commerce.
The notion of "sustainability" of prices in this section refers to prices that would reflect the true costs of the underlying service arising both to service providers (i.e. ensuring their long-term profitability) and to society at large (e.g. in environmental and social terms) – on the assumption, however, that national and cross-border delivery markets are sufficiently competitive and hence efficient.
Questions: competitive but sustainable prices – sustainability and transparency of tariffs
11) Sustainability of tariffs:
a) Do you think that the current level of tariffs charged to consumers for home delivery is sustainable in the medium and long term? If not, what should be done to mitigate this?
b) Should the actual cost of delivery incurred by e-retailers be made more transparent to consumers? If so why?
c) Should the true costs of delivery to the society at large be made more transparent? If so why? And how?
More competitive delivery markets
Consumers often perceive the choice of delivery solutions to be very limited due to the lack of transparency of the market, and the actual state – or perceived state – of competition on the market. In some cases, the relevant delivery markets may be dominated by a small number of operators whose behaviour prevents e-retailers and consumers from reaping the full benefits of truly competitive markets.
Specific ex ante regulatory solutions could be envisaged to the benefit of consumers by making delivery markets competitive on a sustainable basis.
Questions: competitive but sustainable prices - more competitive delivery markets
12) Level of competition in delivery markets:
a) In which markets, or market segments would more competition be essential?
b) Publishing price comparisons would provide more clarity to consumers and SMEs. How could this be done? What would be the pro and cons?
13) Oversight and regulation:
Ex ante regulatory measures (such as transparency obligations, obligations to provide access to delivery networks, and obligation for tariffs to be cost oriented, etc.) imposed on delivery operators with significant market power can lead to more competitive markets.
a) Which would be the relevant markets to consider in this respect?
b) What are the specificities of cross-border operations which could justify cost constraints? Please specify.
c) Should the regulator have more information on cost accounting data of operators to better assess the cost-price structure of packets and parcels?
d) Should regulators and/or competition authorities play a more active role in overseeing the national markets or market segments concerned?
More competitive prices for cross border delivery services
Prices for cross border services are a particular concern for consumers and e-retailers, notably SMEs. Tariffs vary significantly[63], even for orders containing the same range of goods and sent to the same destination. Hence there is a need to identify solutions to limit the impact on delivery prices of crossing border and to close the existing gap between the domestic and the cross-border price, where it is not objectively justified.
Questions: competitive but sustainable prices - more competitive prices for cross border delivery services
14) How can more competitive and transparent cross-border tariffs be ensured?
a) Should it be left to market forces to provide the tariff levels and levels of transparency that are demanded by e-retailers and consumers?
b) Would more regulatory supervision contribute to achieving sustainable prices for consumers?
c) Do you think that applying some type of price cap for single piece cross border packets and parcels would be a feasible and effective option to address the needs of e-retailers and consumers? What would be the impact of such a price cap on market offer and competition?
5.3 Improving interoperability along the delivery chain
More transparency and better partnerships are required in order to address the need of e-retailers, to better understand what constitutes best logistic and delivery practices and to effectively communicate the delivery options that are available to consumers. Successful partnership within and between these two sectors will be decisive for the future of e-commerce.
5.3.1 Investment to increase the use of technology
A more generalised use of tracking could empower clients, enabling them to dictate the place and time of delivery. This would improve the success rate of first delivery attempts and thus bring down costs. At the same time, e-retailers would obtain appropriate and pertinent information, and would thereby be in a position to better manage stocks, optimize refund and return processes and simplify administration processes.
Questions: improving interoperability - investing in technology
15) Levels of investment required:
a) To what extent is it possible to evaluate, both at micro and macro level, the approximate cost of a generalised track and trace system for parcels? Which would be the most relevant parameters to take into account?
b) What specific pilot projects for delivery of e-commerce products could be promoted, possibly within broader programmes aimed at fostering investment in information and communication technologies[64]?
5.3.2 Enhanced partnerships between e-retailers and delivery operators
Operators tend to focus on their big clients with large volumes and have less incentive to invest in marketing their services to smaller shippers, although they would in principle have the potential to increase their business. Also, e-retailers are not always aware of possible alternative solutions and available offers.
Questions: improving interoperability - enhanced partnerships
16) Partnerships and cooperation:
a) Is better co-operation between e-retailers and delivery operators likely to increase the interoperability of operations? If yes, what specifically could retailers and operators do to build new or improve existing partnerships?
b) Should contingency capacities be jointly developed to deal with peak periods? If yes, how could this be done?
c) Would you need the services of facilitators and third party logistics providers? How can those –new or existing- services develop, become better known and more visible?
5.3.3 Interconnected networks and platforms
E-retailers depend on the completion of the Single market for the delivery of e-commerce purchases. The lack of integration and the inability to transfer data between different information systems is a major hurdle to cross-border trade[65], and significant investments will be needed to adapt current systems.
However, when postal operators shipping goods internationally were put under pressure by airlines and customs authorities to meet higher security standards after the identification of significant security risks, they were successful in finding solutions to exchange the required data. A similar effort may be necessary to ensure that e-commerce needs are addressed in a joined up fashion with e-retailers.
The Commission services have already launched a number of demonstration actions aiming to improve the competitiveness of the transport and logistics sector in Europe, through the smart use of information technologies and connect, in particular smaller enterprises to digital transport and logistics value chains[66].
Questions: improving interoperability - interconnection
17) Better interconnection:
a) Could logistics platforms[67] for groups of operators better meet the needs of e-retailers? If yes, how?
b) Could an industry task force[68] contribute to promoting innovation and increasing the use of new technologies to facilitate greater level of interconnection? If so, how?
c) Should the processes used to return goods (both domestically and cross border) be improved? If so, how?
d) Are interoperability requirements and the promotion of new technologies difficult for SMEs operating in the delivery chain? What actions could help mitigate such difficulties?
e) What are (if any) the main three actions which could improve interoperability across EU borders for moving goods ordered on line[69]? What could be done to improve the situation in the short term, what initiatives could be taken in the medium to long term? Also what needs to be done to improve interoperability at the international level?
6. Governance for an integrated European parcel delivery market
The future landscape of European e-commerce will be shaped notably by the delivery capacities and networks which will be put in place in the near future. These changes and their impact on the e-commerce sector need to be monitored, and efforts to promote an efficient and sustainable European delivery environment for e-commerce orders should be co-ordinated.
Some actors already have platforms for co-ordination, for example the European Parcel Group[70] which brings together incumbent postal operators. As for regulators, the European Regulators Group for Postal services[71] aims at facilitating coordination and cooperation between independent national regulatory authorities with a view to ensuring the consistent application of the Postal Services Directive. Currently their activities and roles do not cover the full range of e-commerce activity. New fora could play a role in building a single European delivery market for e-commerce.
More focused cooperation, supervision and enforcement is needed to push the coordination of efforts to promote the delivery sector for e-commerce. This will add to the momentum to facilitate improved delivery of e-commerce goods.
Questions: governance
18) Are there areas which could be effectively tackled by the industry to address the issues identified in this Green Paper? How could this be promoted[72]? How to involve both e-commerce and delivery industry associations?
19) How should current governance aspects of standardisation and interoperability[73] be addressed? Is there a need to increase involvement of representatives of e-commerce, notably SMEs, and consumers?
7. Follow up and next steps:
All interested parties are invited to submit their views in response to the above questions. Contributions should be sent at the latest by 15 February 2013 to the following addresses:
markt-delivery@ec.europa.eu
or
European Commission
DG Internal Market and Services
On line services unit
Rue de la Loi 200
1049 Brussels
Contributions do not need to cover all questions raised in this Green Paper. Accordingly, please indicate clearly the questions to which your contribution relates. If possible, please give specific arguments for or against the options and approaches presented in the paper. In your contribution, you are also invited to give views on whether there are any other aspects/issues that need to be addressed to achieve an integrated parcel delivery market in the European Union.
Contributions will be published on the website of DG Internal Market and Services. The responses received will be available in the Commission website unless confidentiality is specifically requested.
As a follow up to this Green Paper and on the basis of the responses received, the Commission will identify, in spring 2013, the set of actions to be taken to complete the single market for parcels.
[1] The internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in the last five years. It also generates 2.6 jobs for every job cut and at times accounts for 25% of net employment creation (COM (2011) 942 final).
[2] "A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services", COM (2011) 942 final.
[3] Council of the EU, Conclusions on the Digital Single Market and Governance of the Single Market, 31 May 2012; Resolution (P7_TA82010)0320) of 21 September 2010 on completing the internal market for e-commerce.
[4] 42 % of online businesses in UK prioritize improved delivery services compared to 18% for investment in faster broadband.
[5] In short, any small items and goods that can be handled by one person.
[6] 66% of all "cart abandonments" are due to delivery factors, '2011 consumer trends in multi-channel retailing', by Royal Mail.
[7] According to estimates from FTI Consulting, small retailers account for 22% of cross-border e-commerce volumes. Eurostat estimates that over a quarter of all enterprises send e-commerce orders to other EU countries: of these, 23% are small enterprises, 41% are large and 33% are medium enterprises.
[8] A study carried out by Civic Consulting estimates that the EU is missing out on the potential of e-commerce: the total welfare gains for EU consumers from a hypothetical situation where the share of e-commerce in total retailing would be 15% (instead of the 2010 level of 3.5%) is estimated to amount to 204.5 billion Euros per year or 1.7% of EU GDP.
[9] "Focus on the Future" by BCG, May 2012; IMRG; ACSEL; "Intra-community cross-border parcel delivery", FTI 2011; Set of national On line barometers by E-bay; "The evolution of the European Postal market since 1997", ITA/ WIK 2009; IPC Cross border E-commerce report 2010, Eurobarometer, "Consumer market study on the functioning of e-commerce and Internet marketing and selling techniques in the retail of goods", Civic 2011.
[10] Eurobarometer, Business attitude Towards cross-border sales and consumer protection, Analytical report, Flash Eurobarometer 224, July 2008, Chapter 2, section 2.1, page 21.
[11] "Consumer market study on the functioning of e-commerce and Internet marketing and selling techniques in the retail of goods", Civic Consulting, September 2011, pages 132, 40.
[12] A recent UK survey indicates that almost 65% of the respondents mentioned that the risk of failed delivery (due to no-one at home to receive the item) would prevent them from shopping online. Too vague timeslots and the risk that the item may not arrive on time are also a concern for about 43% of the respondents ("A study of online fulfilment requirements", IMRG UK Consumer Home Delivery Review 2012).
[13] Communication "Small Business, Big World — a new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities" COM(2011) 702 final.
[14] E-commerce in the Nordics 2012, Postnord.
[15] Different models are in place for cross border shipments notably via co-operation between national postal services, via direct injection into the national postal system or via other agreements with logistic operators.
[16] In the EU-27 only 9% of EU consumers and 18%[16] of EU retailers use cross-border e-commerce; 48% of consumers reported they are more confident in buying online domestically than cross-border (European Commission, Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, Consumers at home in the single market, March 2011).
[17] The total sales of products for which demand is low or whose sales volume is low can equal or exceed the market shares of best-selling products if sellers can offer a wider choice.
[18] For example, 57% of retailers consider cross-border delivery an obstacle (Flash Eurobarometer 224, July 2008). 78% of eBay sellers identify delivery costs as the main obstacle to cross-border e-commerce, 42% refer to bad quality of delivery services (FreshMinds, Crossborder trade survey in the UK, Germany and France).
[19] In a survey in the UK, free delivery was the most-cited factor by 67% of respondents for making them continuing or increase their usage of an e-retailer (Delivery Matters, 2011 Consumer Trends in multi-channel retailing _Royal Mail).
[20] ITA/WIK 2009. These figures refer to 2008 and include parcel and express market. Another study from IPC indicates the value of the EU CEP market in 2008 to be €37.38 billion (excluding packets) while the B2C segment represented 26% of the total EU CEP market.
[21] In the Postal Directive (Directive 97/67/EC, as amended by Directives 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC), items of correspondence or documents up to 2 kg are considered as letter, goods up to 20 kg are considered to be parcels.
[22] Eurostat (Isoc_ec_ebuyn2) Fig 11.
[23] Universal Service Provider’s market share varies significantly across member states: less than 10% in Member States like Bulgaria, Spain, the UK; between 10%-15% in Member States like Hungary or Italy; and more than 25% in Member States such as the Czech Republic Denmark, France, Estonia- The Evolution of the European Postal Market since 1997, ITA/ WIK 2009.
[24] See Chapter 4 for more information on the Postal Services Directive.
[25] And notably for consumers and SMEs: the lack of a low cost option for packets (below 2 kg); service features such as track and trace options exist but may be offered only in combination with higher added value features.
[26] Third party logistics provide assistance to customers for outsourced services for part, or all of their logistics (such as, pick and pack, warehousing, documentation, labelling procedures and distribution). Online brokers and parcel consolidators offer discounts on single shipments by integrators, or national operators.
[27] Volumes estimations and capacity planning, time schedules where volumes, routes as well as consumer expectations have to be taken into account.
[28] A survey by IRMG for their UK Consumer Home Delivery Review 2012, showed that 85% of the respondents listed access to online tracking information as the single most important way to make deliveries more convenient ("IRMG UK Consumer Home Delivery Review 2012 – a study of online fulfilment requirements"). In a 2011 survey on European e-commerce conducted by Accenture for the European Retail Round Table, supply chain and delivery issues are identified as a barrier to market entry by 34% of the respondents, while 42% of the respondents indicated shipping infrastructure problems (European Cross-border E-commerce – the challenge of achieving profitable growth", Accenture January 2012).
[29] FTI (2011); Civic Consulting (2011); Mystery Shopping Evaluation of Cross-Border e-commerce in the EU (2009).
[30] Postal operators delivering their priority parcel products through the European Parcel Group's integrated delivery network benefit from a track-and-trace system and an automated customer service system linking each postal operator’s call centres.
[31] A number of surveys have been undertaken to identify the needs of consumers vis-à-vis the delivery of goods ordered on line. For example, "Home delivery in the UK 2011" by Snow Valley, IPC Cross border E-commerce report 2010; IRMG (2012), CIVIC (2011).
[32] A study on consumer experiences with online shopping shows that the majority of problems consumers experience when buying goods concern delivery: long delivery times (28% of consumers reporting a problem), damaged product delivered (20%), non-delivery (17%), wrong product delivered (14%), and delivery costs or final price was higher than displayed on website (7%).
[33] IPC Cross border e-commerce report.
[34] The 2011 online retail delivery report, Snow Valley.
[35] Consumer Focus.
[36] More and more UK consumers would like to receive a text to confirm information on delivery status: 80% of online shoppers say they like to receive updates at every stage of the delivery, Delivery matters, 2011.
[37] IPC Cross border E-commerce report 2010.
[38] Top 2 barriers to cross border shipping in France are the high cost of shipping (78%) and poor shipping services (42%), compared to 28% for lack of demand, or 12% for cultural differences (eBay report).
[39] Including the costs for renewing the fleet in order to keep it updated to meet environmental standards.
[40] As in the demonstration action DiSCwise, (http://www.discwise.eu/).
[41] Directive 97/67/EC, as amended by Directives 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC.
[42] Only 36% of the parcel market is held by universal service providers; and of those 36% only a small amount fall under the universal service obligations. The minimum requirements in the Postal Directive entail the provision of over the counter or basic parcel services. Minimum universal service obligations are spelled out in article 3 of the Directive but Member States can go beyond these requirements.
[43] COM (2011) 635final 11.10.2011.
[44] Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), COM(2011) 793 final adopted on 29 November 2011.
[45] Article 19 of the Postal Directive calls upon Member States to encourage the development of independent out-of-court schemes for the resolution of disputes.
[46] Directive 2006/123/EC.
[47] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/servicesdir/implementation/report/SWD_2012_146_en.pdf.
[48] EC-White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, COM(2011) 144 final and the e-Freight initiative: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_move_001_e_freight.pdf.
[49] For example, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, OJ L 152, 11 June 2008 provides for a regulatory framework in relation to air quality objectives in the EU.
[50] As laid down in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 and Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety.
[51] More on the scope of VAT exemption in the postal sector: see the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in case C-357/07, The Queen, on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, ECR [2009] I – 03025, paragraphs 36 – 40.
[52] For example, point 19 of Article 2 of the Postal Services Directive identifies compliance with the terms and conditions of employment as one of the possible essential requirements for the postal service providers when applying for the authorization.
[53] Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of the Council of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.
[54] Please note that your replies to the subsequent questions should at any rate be based on the definition as set out in the Green Paper.
[55] 47% of consumers indicate that the lack of delivery convenience may prevent them from shopping online (Consumer Focus research on consumer needs, November 2010).
[56] In addition to the requirements in EU consumer legislation that oblige traders to provide clear and transparent information to consumers, notably their rights to withdraw from distance contracts.
[57] In addition to the information requirements in the EU consumer legislation and the Services and the E-commerce Directives (2006/123/EC and 2000/31/EC).
[58] See Article 19 of the Postal Service Directive establishing transparent complaint procedures, mediation services and alternative dispute resolution systems.
[59] On the specific subject of multimodal liability, the Commission is awaiting the outcome of the ratification process of the Rotterdam Rules by Member States.
[60] For cost allocation purposes, "weight, insurance levels and speed" are not necessarily cost drivers which are associated with all postal activities (collection, transport, sorting and delivery). Additionally, the allocation of common costs to the various postal products usually involves the use of a general allocator (such as EPMU – Equally proportionate mark-up price), where the different cost attributes such as weight are not directly relevant. This means that this cost calculation based on the above mentioned cost allocation principles does not necessarily yield the same result as using weight, or other single attributes, as a proxy for cost.
[61] E.g. an increased level of harmonisation of delivery process, efficiency gains, consolidation and sharing facilities at local logistic hubs. See also e-Freight initiative: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_move_001_e_freight.pdf.
[62] See Chapter 4 on the current regulatory framework.
[63] FTI, CIVIC (2011), Eurobarometer, Accenture "European cross border e-commerce" (2011), YouGov Psychonomics "Mystery Shopping Evaluation of Cross-Border e-commerce in the EU" (2009). YouGov Psychonomics reports that the delivery price charged by e-commerce and distant vendors to consumers is on average twice as high for cross-border than for domestic deliveries: the average cost of shipping for domestic offers was €8 whereas for cross-border it was €16.
[64] Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, Digital Convergence Operational Programme, or other initiatives to develop specific technologies, such as, the use of Radio Frequency Identification Data.
[65] On the one hand, there are differences between domestic and cross-border IT platforms, which may even differ for those delivery operators which have a cross-border presence in the EU. On the other hand, there is information which could be shared between e-retailers and delivery operators so as to improve capacity planning on both sides. For example, e-retailers have the data regarding the products bought online and know when and how much will be put in the delivery pipeline. As for returns, it could be useful for e-retailers to be informed about the volume and time of returns in real-time, which would allow for proactive customer care and for effective stock management.
[66] The DiSCwise project (http://www.discwise.eu/), funded by DG ENTR, aims to get stakeholders more connected, by assisting their integration into efficient co-modal supply chains. It allows transport & logistics service users and providers, in particular SMEs, to more easily participate in transport planning and execution, making use of sustainable transport alternatives.
[67] Ideally, those platforms would streamline delivery for e-commerce, integrate logistic services with shared information systems, improve coordination, and use a common or agreed carrier for delivery (limiting environmental impact and facilitate handling of returns and management of stocks).
[68] An example of such a task force was the former US Mailing Industry Task Force which was created in the 90's and brought together senior technology officers from key industry stakeholders to find innovative and intelligent solutions to better deliver mail.
[69] Currently about 30% of online shoppers in the UK indicate they buy goods from foreign websites (also outside Europe). The intra -EU average for on line cross border is at around 10 %. Against that background, the importance of agreeing on European and international standards and ensuring a higher degree of connectivity becomes clear, notably for SMEs and consumers who are disproportionally affected.
[70] See footnote 17.
[71] Commission Decision 2010/C217/07.
[72] For example, the promotion of best practices, partnership agreements, codes of conduct; standards for electronic data transfers, labels, address databases; developing a European delivery label.
[73] At present, standardisation issues are dealt with in the CEN Technical Committee for postal services, and interoperability issues among some postal operators are handled by the European Parcel Group.