EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52005AE0377

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee — Enhancing trust and confidence in business-to-business electronic markets (COM(2004) 479 final)

SL C 255, 14.10.2005, p. 29–32 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.10.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/29


Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee — Enhancing trust and confidence in business-to-business electronic markets

(COM(2004) 479 final)

(2005/C 255/04)

On 14 July 2004 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 March 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Lagerholm.

At its 416th plenary session (meeting of 6 April 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 131 votes and 4 abstentions.

1.   Summary

1.1

The Commission has presented a Communication on enhancing trust and confidence in B2B e-markets. The Committee is of the opinion that:

By and large, the report covers important questions on the acceptance of e-markets and it does so in a fair way.

However, the Committee would like to stress that this is not the sole action needed. To a certain extent, it is also understandable that the market has a somewhat reluctant attitude. Especially the more advanced forms of e-markets are different from the traditional business models of SMEs.

Looking upon cross-border trade, there are other hinders of much greater importance.

2.   The Commission Communication

2.1

The Commission Communication is to a large extent built on the work of an expert group with representatives from industry and the providers of electronic markets (‘the expert group’) (1). The Communication addresses the need to enhance trust and confidence in B2B e-markets in order to reduce economic risks stemming from unfair or illegal business practices in such markets. B2B e-markets have the potential to enhance efficiency by reducing transaction costs and strengthening competition, but such efficiency gains largely depend on the willingness of enterprises to participate in them. To remove the potential barriers to the use of B2B e-markets resulting from a lack of trust and confidence, the Commission foresees taking the following steps:

Analysis, in close cooperation with Member States, of existing national legislation which applies to unfair commercial practices in B2B markets.

Encouragement of the stakeholders to agree on or review codes of conduct, with a view to further promoting fair trade principles in B2B e-markets, as described in this Communication.

Launch of a study on the economic impacts of B2B e-markets on competitiveness and productivity of EU enterprises, analysing in particular the direct and indirect costs and benefits incurred by the e-market participants. The results of this study will be further discussed with stakeholders.

Provision of coherent information on the application of existing competition rules on B2B e-markets, in order to provide guidance for pro-competitive behaviour.

2.2

The Communication will encourage a more intense dialogue between stakeholders involved in B2B e-markets with regard to respecting fair trade principles and security requirements. As a consequence, potential barriers to the participation in such electronic trading forms should be removed. The Commission's services will regularly report on the progress made through the European e-marketplaces portal.

3.   Business-to-Business Electronic Markets — definition

3.1

B2B e-markets can be defined as internet-based trading platforms where enterprises exchange goods and services. Following this rather broad definition, B2B e-markets can be grouped into the following categories, according to the different transaction functionalities offered:

Pin-boards or message boards, which are the simplest type of e-markets, offering only limited transaction functionality. The preparation of transactions is possible by giving the opportunity to announce a specific desire to buy or sell something.

Exchanges, which represent an extension of pin-boards. They typically offer mechanisms to match buyers and sellers, control their interactions and enable them to negotiate via the platform.

Catalogue-based e-markets, which provide a combined product catalogue composed of the catalogues of various sellers.

Auction services, which are formal price-finding procedures supported on an internet trading platform where sales auctions are initiated by a seller with the aim of selling products or services at the highest possible price. Reverse auctions (or ‘procurement auctions’) are initiated by the buyer with the aim of obtaining products and services for the lowest possible price.

The number of active e-markets has varied over time and is not yet stable. It is estimated that currently, about 1,000 e-markets are active worldwide, which is about 20 % less than two years ago [SEC(2004) 930].

4.   General comments

4.1

The Commission Communication covers the area of ‘Enhancing trust and confidence in Business to Business Electronic Markets’. Electronic markets are an important part of the more general area of e-business. Some general comments can be made on this area of e-business.

4.1.1

Basically, well-functioning electronic markets are contributing to a more efficient business environment. In the longer run, this is beneficial to European business and to employment. Increased competition will stimulate European business to improve their efficiency. The EESC therefore supports actions that are beneficial for the development of electronic commerce. This has also been stated in previous comments.

4.1.2

In its opinion on the proposed directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce (2), the Committee noted that an uncertain legal framework is prohibitive for electronic commerce. The current communication aims to reduce this uncertainty and the EESC welcomes this.

4.1.3

The EESC, in its opinions on the Commission's communications ‘Helping SMEs to “Go Digital”’ (3) and ‘Adapting e-business policies in a changing environment: The lessons of the Go Digital initiative and the challenge ahead’ (4), has commented on the Commission's efforts to stimulate e-business. Basically, those comments are still valid.

4.1.4

For business and the public sector, electronic business is of great importance. It opens up possibilities for increased competitiveness, for trade across the internal market and for equal opportunities for SMEs. It is important to promote this new technology for usage, specifically among the SMEs. The Committee welcomes and supports the Commission's work in this area.

4.1.5

The Committee also welcomes the findings of the Expert Group on B2B Internet Trading Platforms. The group has done a thorough work on identifying problems. The expert group might however seem a bit unclear on the awareness among SMEs on the benefits. Page 10 says that ‘SMEs are, in general, aware and convinced of the advantages of e-business’; page 11 states that ‘SMEs still hesitate to fully engage in themselves in electronic trade’ and this is due to a ‘lack of awareness of the risks and benefits’. However, it is important to note the difference between e-business and electronic trade. It could be concluded that SMEs are aware of the general possibilities of using IT, whereas the more specific electronic trading still is more distant.

4.1.6

Even though there is an awareness of the possibilities of e-business and many SMEs are at the forefront in using e-commerce, there are some problems that still prohibit the full participation of the majority of SMEs in ‘the e-business society’. These problems are of a more general nature, and do not specifically limit themselves to electronic trading. Nevertheless, these problems are also relevant for this area.

SMEs tend to be more focused on the immediate problems. They hesitate to invest in technology and procedures that do not have an immediate pay back.

A lack of solutions, designed and developed particularly for SMEs. SMEs do not have the same requirements as larger companies and worse, consultants tend often to be too expensive for SMEs, so they cannot easily use existing solutions.

SMEs often do not have the specialists required for many of the software packages, nor for developing their own interfaces to standard software.

Many large enterprises demand from their suppliers that they implement specific software as a condition for them to become or stay as suppliers. This creates a lock in situation, as a SME often can't afford, nor handle the complex technical situation created if several of their customers each require specific solutions. This could also be seen as a problem, due to a lack of general standards.

eBusiness introduces an economy of scale factor for the benefit of larger companies, — or even with a regressional effect as indicated above. The SME cannot set its own rules; the cost for implementing support is more or less regardless of size. So the SME might have to implement several different solutions, whereas the larger company has one.

4.1.6.1

The Commission has several initiatives for supporting SMEs using e-business. The Committee supports these, and would encourage the Commission to add or enhance initiatives that promote the specific need of SMEs for adapted software and standards.

4.1.7

The EESC also would like to make a special note of the need to stimulate an interest, in SMEs, in learning how to participate in electronic business. The area of electronic commerce and electronic business is moving rapidly. Stimulus to SMEs in life long learning could be worth looking into.

4.1.7.1

That is well in keeping with the recommendations in the Committee's recently adopted opinion on lifelong learning (5). In that opinion, the EESC recommends strengthening the lifelong learning programmes aimed at citizens currently in the workforce, while also making an immediate link between these programmes and the achievement of a knowledge-based economy. The EESC attaches particular importance to the possibility of SMEs having access to the programme.

5.   Specific comments

5.1   B2B Internet trading platforms

5.1.1

The Expert Group, in its final report, has distinguished between different forms of trading platforms. The Committee supports the comment from the experts that ‘it would not be appropriate to focus only on e-marketplaces’. There are many different ways to participate in the ‘e-business society’. Different companies have different needs and different business principles. As the expert group takes notice of, ‘as most problems for SMEs are related to e-marketplaces, and here in particular to reverse auctions, this specific form of B2B Internet trading platform has … earned most attention’.

5.1.2

However, the Committee would at this moment also want to draw attention to the ongoing implementation at national legislative level of the two Directives on public procurement. The two Directives open up new methods for electronic procurement and, even though we might see some differences in different countries' implementations, it is of course of great value for business that public procurement can stimulate the usage of new electronic means. The Commission has also launched an ‘action plan for the implementation of the legal framework for electronic public purchasing’, which plays an important part in making SMEs more familiar with electronic business.

5.1.3

The Committee agrees with the notion that e-marketplaces have specific potentials that would be unwise not to support. The Communication is welcomed. It does, however, believe that lack in trust and confidence, although important, is not the only reason for the reluctant attitude from SMEs towards e-marketplaces, or, for that matter, the more general concept of B2B Internet trading platforms.

5.1.3.1

As the expert group states, ‘Enterprise policy can play a useful role in helping SMEs to adapt to the new challenges of Internet trading platforms, by promoting market transparency, interoperability and fairness. … public authorities should not promote specific forms of e-commerce but remain neutral with respect to different sales channels and different functionalities at Internet trading platforms. … A need for further actions has been identified in particular in the areas of awareness building, market transparency, standardisation, trust and confidence.’

5.1.3.2

In general, B2B Internet trading platforms have to be fed with information from SMEs. The more advanced, the more there is a need for standards. These standards are still a far way from being completed, and when completed, there must be SME-adapted software using it.

5.1.3.3

The lack of standards is not only technical, but also with regard to man/machine interface. Considering the amount of trading platforms, and adding the issue of multilingual complexities, it can be understandable that SMEs are reluctant. This area is needed to look deeper into from standardisation bodies, as well as from the Commission, especially if it is desired to promote cross border trade. It is also valid for the standardisation of product and service classifications and wordings, where the ongoing efforts in CEN/ISSS are supported by the EESC.

5.1.3.4

To a certain extent, there is a problem for SMEs to participate in electronic auctions and other electronic marketplaces due to the size of the requested tender. SMEs have a limited potential to deliver large volumes. Specifically in public procurement, this is an issue that should be given attention.

5.1.3.5

Other issues that might prohibit the use of Internet trading platforms are different national legislations and implementations of EU directives. It is regrettable that many directives allow for national options from the point of view of harmonising, e-Signatures being a major problem. The Committee welcomes and strongly supports the initiative from the Commission on analysing existing legislation.

5.2   Electronic markets including electronic auctions

5.2.1

Different B2B Internet trading platforms are suitable for different purposes. Electronic markets tend to promote ‘lowest price’. This is in many cases not the most important factor. Just in time delivery, service costs and cost for customising are as important — or even more so. These factors are difficult to include in more or less automated e-markets, which might explain part of the relatively slow uptake of the more automated versions of e-markets.

5.2.2

SMEs are often not primarily competing only with ‘lowest price’, but also with flexibility and customising. For SMEs, the personal relation is important. The use of e-markets represent a new ‘business culture’, to which SMEs not always are adapted. The anonymity of Internet might scare SMEs. Psychological reasons might well be of importance for the reluctance to use more advanced electronic markets. Codes of Conduct must take these circumstances in consideration.

5.2.3

In the discussion on competition rules for B2B e-markets, it is referred to the concern that the ‘so called network effects’ may result in a dominant position of a network operator. It is debatable to what extent this should be a matter of concern. The risk for abuse of such a dominating position seems to be limited in most cases. However, the Committee does support that the Commission follows this issue, in order to notice possible abuse arising from a significant power, but it strongly advocates that specific regulations for electronic markets in this respect should not be introduced. The regulation for e-markets shall, as much as possible, be equivalent to the rules for the traditional markets. Rules and directives must be neutral to technology and service delivery mechanisms.

5.3   Trust and confidence

5.3.1

The Committee supports the Commission in encouraging stakeholders to agree on or review codes of conduct. It also wants to support the ideas, brought forward by the expert group, on the usage of a check list.

5.3.2

The Commission remarks in the Communication (page 4) that many enterprises may ‘perceive it as difficult to distinguish between a shift of market power that has to be accepted for economic reasons, and unfair practices which do not comply with legal provisions of code of conduct’. When new business models are introduced, it often takes some time for the market to adapt. The Commissions remark is certainly valid, and more emphasis should be put into trying to explain the new market mechanisms.

5.3.3

Even though some suppliers might be negative to reverse auctions, this is certainly a tool of great potential for commodities (extremely well defined products with a low degree of service content and a low possibility for branding). The Committee agrees with the Commission that there must be more strict rules to this kind of auctions, be it electronic or by any other means.

5.3.4

The issue of trust and confidence has many dimensions:

trust in the concept of marketplaces, that it is of benefit to my business;

the specific marketplace as such, being the ‘best’ marketplace for my purpose;

trust in that there is no ‘small letter text’ (rules that are hidden);

trust in the rules of the marketplace, and that the rules are followed by all participants;

trust in the supporting technology, including security;

trust in the access to relevant information on the buyer or seller;

trust in that relevant dimensions are the dimensions that define the outcome.

These, and other, dimensions of trust and confidence should be taken into consideration.

5.4

In summary, the Committee does not disagree on any major subject with the conclusions in the Communication. However, it does consider it important to realise that this might be an important or even necessary step to promote the usage of B2B Internet Trading platforms, and specifically e-markets, but it is not the only step needed. Standards, suitable software, awareness building, national and EU legislation are other areas.

Brussels, 6 April 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND


(1)  Final Report of the Expert Group on B2B Internet trading platforms

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/ict/policy/b2b/wshop/fin-report.pdf

(2)  OJ C 169 of 16 June 1999

(3)  OJ C 80 of 3 April 2002

(4)  OJ C 108 of 30 April 2004

(5)  OJ C 133 of 6 June 2003


Top