|
Review of the General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC)
Factual summary report – public consultation
|
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST)
Table of Contents
1
Introduction
2
Overview of the respondents
5
3
Overview of responses
7
1Introduction
The objective of this consultation, which ran between 30 June 2020 and 6 October 2020, was to gather views of the public on the review of the General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC) as one of the four initiatives in the EU consumer policy that the Commissions plans to adopt in 2020 and 2021.
These initiatives are:
·A Commission Communication on a new European Consumer Agenda,
·and three legislative proposals respectively on:
oempowering consumers in the green transition;
oa review of the Directive on consumer credit agreements for consumers (2008/48/EC);
oa review of the General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC).
This last initiative aims to update the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) to the challenges brought by new technologies and online selling. The initiative aims to ensure improved safety of non-food consumer products and to provide for better enforcement and more efficient market surveillance. This initiative will also cover the Council Directive 87/357/EEC concerning the safety of food-imitating products to address the existing safety issues linked to these products.
The public consultation ran for all four consumer initiatives at the same time as one public consultation on A New Consumer Agenda. Part IV of the public consultation questionnaire on a New Consumer Agenda addressed the review of the GPSD. This factual summary concerns only this GPSD part.
The full results of the public consultation, covering all four initiatives, is available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12464-A-New-Consumer-Agenda/public-consultation.
The public questionnaire was targeting a wide range of stakeholders, both general public and relevant organizations and institutions.
The consultation was available and respondents could reply in any of the 24 official EU-languages.
2Overview of the respondents
The section on GPSD of the public consultation on a New Consumer Agenda was optional. The number of respondents that answered at least one question in this section is 257. The majority of respondents were business associations and EU citizens (each 26%), followed by company/business organisations (15%). Other respondents included public authorities (11%), consumer organisations (8%), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (7%), academic/research institutions (3%), non-EU citizens (1%) and other respondents (3%) (see the following figure).
The following figure provides an overview of the respondents.
Country of origin of respondents
The vast majority of responses came from EU countries, while the share of responses from non-EU countries was 6% (see next figure).
Responses from EU countries
Most of the responses came from Belgium (54), followed by Germany (39), France (24), and Italy (18), see figure below.
In total, 16 respondents from non-EU countries answered to the questions in this section (6 from the UK, 6 from the US, and 2 each from Norway and Switzerland).
3Overview of responses
Q1 In your view, to what extent are current EU safety rules for non-food consumer products covered by the GPSD adequate to protect consumers?
A large majority of respondents expressed that current EU safety rules for non-food consumer products covered by the GPSD could be improved in specific areas to be more adequate to protect consumers (71%). Nearly one in four respondents held that the current rules were fully adequate, whereas only a small minority considered them not to be adequate at all (6%), see the following figure.
Total no. of respondents: 214, Single-choice question
Q2 Are you aware of any problems related to the implementation of EU safety rules for consumer products covered by the GPSD?
When asked about problems related to the implementation of safety rules for products covered by the GPSD, respondents most commonly expressed that rules were not adapted to online trade (39%) and that the rules were not appropriately enforced (39%). More than a third also considered the rules not to be adapted to new technologies (36%) and perceived legal definitions as not sufficiently clear or outdated (35%). Slightly less than a third of respondents (30%) reported that roles and obligations of different economic operators were not appropriately defined and that there were difficulties for consumers to report unsafe products. Lastly, approximately a fifth of respondents regarded as problematic that there were no specific requirements for product recalls (22%) or listed other issues (23%) (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 205, Multiple-choice question
Q3 Do you think that the safety of products involving new technologies is adequately regulated?
Almost half the respondents considered the safety of products involving new technologies to be not adequately regulated (47%), with only 18 % stating the opposite. The other 35% did not know (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 227, Single-choice question
Q4 When incorporated into a physical product, software can malfunction and cause a safety issue. When considering whether a product is safe, should the definition of a product in the GPSD specifically encompass also the software incorporated into it?
When asked whether the definition of a product in the GPSD should specifically encompass software incorporated into the product, the majority of respondents agreed, even in case the software is downloaded after the product has been sold (56%).
About a quarter of respondents considered that only software already installed into the product when sold should be included. Only a small minority answered that the definition should not encompass software (6%) or preferred an “other” option (12%), see figure below.
Total no. of respondents: 211
Q5 How important do you think it is that products that could be modified via software updates/downloads or machine learning are required to remain safe throughout their lifetime?
Almost all respondents considered a requirement for products that could be modified via software updates/download or machine learning to remain safe to be very important (72%) or rather important (24%). A mere 3% regarded the requirement as rather unimportant, while none of the respondents considered it not to be important at all (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 217, Single-choice question
Q6 Products incorporating AI applications can evolve via machine learning and other techniques, even after they have been acquired by consumers, potentially posing safety risks. In your opinion, at which moment of the lifecycle of the product should manufacturers have safety obligations?
A clear majority of respondents favoured safety obligations for manufacturers of products incorporating AI applications at the design stage and also during the lifecycle of the product (75%), whereas only 9% of respondents expressed that the obligations should be limited to the design stage. 16% preferred an “other” solution (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 213, Single-choice question
Q7 Have you experienced any product safety incident within the last 5 years?
A clear majority of respondents did not experience any product safety incident within the last 5 years (65%), with the share of affirmative answers being 35%, see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 175, Single-choice question
If yes, how did you buy the product?
Among the 62 respondents that answered yes to Q7 the largest group had bought the product online from a seller based in the EU (27%), followed by each 24% of respondents that had acquired the product from a physical shop or online from a seller based outside the EU. About one fifth of respondents stated that they had obtained the product online but were unsure where the seller was based and 5% gave no answer (see the following figure).
Multiple-choice question
Q8 Have you experienced any lack of information linked to safety when buying products online?
A small majority of the respondents reported that they had experienced a lack of information linked to safety when buying products online (51%), while the other half did not share this experience (49%), see the figure below.
Total no. of respondents: 185, Single-choice question
If yes, what was this lack of information linked to?
Of those 94 respondents that answered yes to Q8 a clear majority considered the lack of information to be linked to missing contact of the producer of a product bought online to report a safety incident to (65%) and/or to not receiving enough warnings or instructions concerning the product sold online (63%). Slightly less than half of the respondents perceived that there was no place to report a product safety incident on the website as problematic in this respect (44%), while a quarter of the respondents considered other factors to be relevant. Another 1% gave no answer (see the following figure).
Multiple-choice question
Q9 Online marketplaces enable companies to sell to EU consumers but, according to EU rules, they do not have direct legal obligations for the safety of products hosted on their platform by sellers. Are you aware of any problems this regime would bring about?
The majority of respondents expressed that they were aware of problems associated with online marketplaces having no direct legal obligations for the safety of products hosted on their platform by sellers (53%). However, almost half of the respondents indicated the opposite (47%) (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 209, Single-choice question
Q10 What should be the role of online marketplaces as regards the safety of products offered on their website?
When asked about the role that online marketplaces should play regarding the safety of products offered on their websites, the most commonly supported notions were that they should remove dangerous products listed on their website when notified (77%), that online marketplaces should prevent the appearance of dangerous products, including their reappearance once they have been removed (66%) and that they should inform sellers of their obligation to comply with EU rules on products (64%). More than half of the respondents agreed that online marketplaces should inform consumers when a dangerous product has been removed from the marketplace (55%). A slightly lower number of respondents thought that online marketplaces should do a cursory check on all products offered on their website to identify products that likely do not comply with safety rules (42%). Several respondents also indicated the option “other” (14%), see the figure below.
Total no. of respondents: 221, Multiple-choice question
Q11 What are the main challenges for enforcement?
When asked about the main challenges for enforcement half of the respondents considered as problematic that Member States’ authorities did not have enough resources (49%), followed by the difficulty of taking enforcement actions against economic operators outside the EU (46%). Other challenges included that not enough control checks are carried out, including by customs (29%), that there is not enough cooperation between market surveillance authorities in the EU (27%), and that these authorities assess product risk differently (19%). All other answer items were indicated by 18% or less of respondents.
Total no. of respondents: 207, Multiple-choice question with maximum 3 choices
Q12 Do you think that products covered by the GPSD should only be placed on the EU market if there is an economic operator established in the EU who is responsible for product safety purposes?
A large majority of respondents considered that products covered by the GPSD should only be placed on the EU market if there is an economic operator established in the EU responsible for product safety purposes (70%), with the other 30% expressed the opposite view (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 186, Single-choice question
Q13 Are you aware of any issue where additional competences of the European Commission for the enforcement of product safety rules could improve the safety of consumers?
Close to two thirds of respondents indicated that they were not aware of issues where additional enforcement competences of the European Commission could improve the safety of consumers (64%). However, more than a third of the respondents suggested the opposite (36%), see the figure below.
Total no. of respondents: 170, Single-choice question
Q14 Should the system of product traceability be reinforced in the GPSD so that products can be better traced if there is a safety issue?
A large majority of respondents agreed that the system of product traceability should be reinforced in the GPSD (82%), while only 18% of respondents did not regard this as necessary (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 171, Single-choice question
Q15 Do you experience problems with the divergence of rules between harmonised and non-harmonised products?
Almost one in three respondents reported having experienced problems with the divergence of rules between harmonised and non-harmonised products (30%), while 23% stated the opposite. Almost half of the respondents expressed that they did not know (47%) (see the following figure).
Total no. of respondents: 178, Single-choice question
Q16 Products which resemble foodstuff, while not being such, have a separate regime (Council Directive 87/357/EEC). This has given rise to different interpretations on whether such products are dangerous in itself or not. Should these products keep having a separated regime or be incorporated into the general product safety legal instrument?
A large majority of respondents expressed that products which resemble foodstuff should be incorporated into the general product safety legal instrument (69%), whereas the other 31% felt that the regime should remain separate.
Total no. of respondents: 155, Single-choice question
|
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
Ÿone copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
Ÿmore than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*)The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
Ÿvia EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:
Ÿvia one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
|