attitudes towards crossborder sales and consumer protection

Fl282_Analytical Report_ final_+AnnexGallup Flash Eurobarometer No 189a – EU communication and the citizens
Analytical Report, page 1
h e
G a
llu p
O rg
a n
iz a
tio n
This survey was requested by Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection and coordinated by Directorate General Communication
This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission.
The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
Attitudes towards cross- border sales and consumer protection Analytical report Fieldwork: July 2009
Publication: March 2010
protection
Survey conducted by The Gallup Organization Hungary upon the request of Directorate- General Health and Consumer Protection
Coordinated by Directorate-General Communication
are solely those of the authors.
THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION
Analytical Report Flash EB No 282 – Cross-border sales and consumer protection
page 3
1.2. Cross-border shopping while on holiday, shopping or business trip.......................................... 16
2. Aspects of consumer protection ..................................................................................................... 18
2.1. Complaints ................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2. Aspects of consumer protection ................................................................................................. 24 2.3. Unfair commercial practices ...................................................................................................... 30 2.4. Privacy notices ........................................................................................................................... 36
3. Safety and product recall................................................................................................................ 42
5.1. Comparability of offers .............................................................................................................. 59 5.2. Difficulties of switching providers............................................................................................. 62 5.3. Recent changes in the price of electricity................................................................................... 65
Annex tables......................................................................................................................................... 68
III. Questionnaire .............................................................................................................................. 200
Flash EB No 282 – Cross-border sales and consumer protection Analytical Report
page 4
Introduction
The survey’s fieldwork was carried out between the 13 and 23 July 2009. Over 25,000 randomly selected citizens aged 15 years and over were interviewed across the EU. The survey was conducted by telephone, with WebCATI (web-based computer assisted telephone interviewing). Interviews were predominantly carried out by fixed-line telephone, reaching ca. 1,000 EU citizens in each country (the size of the sample was 500 in Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus). Although interviews were predominantly carried out by telephone via fixed-lines, interviews were also conducted via mobile telephones and by face-to-face (F2F) interviews as appropriate. This methodology ensures that results are representative of the EU-27 Member State population. In most of the countries where a large share of residents could not be contacted by fixed-line telephones (as many do not subscribe to such service), a mixed-mode methodology was employed to ensure that these individuals were questioned and this was done either through F2F interviews or by including mobile telephones in the sampling frame. To correct sampling disparities, a post-stratification weighting of the results was implemented, based on key socio-demographic variables. More details on the survey methodology are included in the Annex of this report. Please note that due to rounding, the percentages shown in the charts and tables do not always add up exactly to the totals mentioned in the text. All differences in percentages mentioned in this report are statistically significant unless otherwise indicated.
page 5
Main findings - Overall, in the past 12 months, 38% of all EU citizens made a distance purchase on the
Internet , while 23% used the post (catalogues, mail order, etc.) and 14% made a distance purchase by phone. These figures represent an increase for internet sales (+5), while mail order and telephone sales became less frequent since 2008. More than half (52%) of all EU consumers made at least one distance purchase which represents no change since 20081. There are large variations between countries on this point, with the level of distance shopping ranging from only 17% in Bulgaria to 77% in Germany.
- The level of cross-border online shopping in EU countries has remained relatively low: 8% of
EU’s consumers bought goods or services via the Internet in the last 12 months from a seller/provider located in another EU Member State, up 1 percentage point on last year’s figure (and 4% shopped from a country outside the EU, no change since 2008).
- EU consumers are more likely to make cross-border purchases face-to-face, i.e. either when
they are on holiday, shopping or business trips, rather than online, by mail order or by telephone. In the last 12 months, almost 1 in 4 consumers in the EU (24%) purchased goods while on a holiday, shopping or business trip in another EU country, while only 9% made a distance cross- border purchase within the EU.
- In the last 12 months, 1 in 10 EU consumers complained to their seller or provider when
they encountered problems with items. Another 4% did not complain even though they encountered problems. Compared to the results of a similar survey conducted one year ago, there was a significant decrease of 6 percentage points of those who complained to the seller or provider. Half of the consumers who complained were “fairly” or “very” satisfied, and 48% were “not very” or “not at all” satisfied with the way the seller/provider dealt with their complaint, which represents no change since 2008 (satisfied: 51%, dissatisfied: 47%).
- The most often invoked reasons for not complaining about a problem encountered were on the
one hand, the perceived small chances of getting a satisfactory remedy to the problem encountered (32%), and on the other hand, the fact that the sum involved was too small (26%). Almost half (46%) of those who complained but were not satisfied with the way their complaint was dealt with did not take any further action to solve the problem they encountered. For half of the EU consumers who complained to their sellers/providers in the last 12 months, a satisfactory resolution was the replacement of the product purchased.
- In the last 12 months, the quality of the product or service purchased was for the majority (59%)
of EU consumers the main reason why they complained to the sellers or providers or to a third party. The proportion of those who complained because of the poor quality of the product or service purchased varied widely between Member States: from 27% in Belgium to 81% in Lithuania.
- Almost two-thirds of EU consumers (64%) reported that they had confidence in independent
consumer organisations to protect their rights, while the proportion of those trusting public authorities to protect their rights as consumers was significantly lower (54% - both figures are unchanged from 2008). Slightly less than 6 in 10 EU consumers agreed that, in general, sellers and providers respect their rights as consumers (unchanged since 2008), and 54% felt that they were adequately protected by the existing consumer protection measures (slightly up from 51% in 2008). In all Member States, except for Hungary, a majority of respondents agreed that they would be more willing to defend their rights if they could join with other consumers who
1 However, in the 2008 figure purchases through sales representatives were also included, with 9% having used that channel.
page 6
were complaining about the same thing (the overall figures rose slightly from 76 % in 2008 to 78% for 2009).
- In the last 12 months, 6 in 10 EU consumers felt they came across unsolicited commercial
advertisements or offers, while 54% felt that they had come across misleading or deceptive advertisements or offers. 10% of EU consumers who came across what they believed to be misleading or deceptive advertisements or offers discovered this by actually responding to them, a similar proportion than in 2008, when 9% declared they did the same.
- The most frequent unfair commercial practice in the EU was the marketing of so-called
“free” products . 54% of all EU consumers came across this unfair practice. In the last 12 months, more than 8 in 10 EU consumers (82%) came across at least one type of unfair commercial practice. The proportion ranged from 94% in Greece to 66% in Bulgaria.
- Overall one third of EU consumers did not read any of the privacy notices on the websites
they visited in the last 12 months (41% if only those who did not deny visiting any websites are considered), while another 15% said that they did this “rarely”. Almost 3 in 10 EU consumers said that they “often” or “sometimes” read the privacy notices on websites. For about one third of those who read privacy notices, their content was judged “quite unclear” and 11% found them “very unclear”. More than 4 in 10 EU respondents who read privacy notices on websites stated that they never visited websites or used online services where they did not feel confident that their privacy was sufficiently protected. However, 11% declared that they used websites or online services where they “often” felt that their privacy was not properly protected and around one in five respondents felt this “sometimes”. Despite their concern about the protection of their privacy on certain websites and online services, 41% of those respondents still used them.
- The survey recorded a growing mistrust of the safety of non-food products: 1 in 4 respondents in
2009 (vs. 18% in 2008) considered that a significant number of products were unsafe. Only 11% considered that essentially all products were safe, compared to 17% in 2008. However, a majority thought that only a small number of products were unsafe.
- Despite the growing mistrust in the safety of non-food products, only 21% of respondents
actively looked for safety information in the past 12 months. The most commonly used source of information on safety were the product’s labels and notices: more than half of those looking for safety information mentioned this source. In terms of country differences, the percentage of consumers looking for information varied between 10% and 34%. In Denmark, Greece and Italy, more than 3 in 10 respondents reported looking for safety information in the past 12 months. At the other end of the scale, in Estonia, the corresponding share was less than half the EU average.
- In some countries, a single source of information tends to be used by a majority of consumers
looking for safety information. For instance, in Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Romania, labels and other notices on a product were used to find out safety information by at least 50% – more respondents than any other sources of information. However, in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovenia, almost all sources of information (labels, media, word of mouth, websites etc.) were used by similar proportions of consumers looking for safety information.
- A majority of consumers (68%) have heard about non-food products being recalled from the
market. This is a significant drop in awareness (or incidence) compared to 2008, when 74% indicated that they came across news related to product recalls.
- The main source of information about products recalls was the print and electronic media.
Only a small percentage of respondents mentioned other sources such as the Internet, word of mouth and warning notices in shops. Employees and consumers who studied until the age of 20 appeared more likely than other segments to have heard about product recalls (77% each, against an EU average of 67%). At the other end of the scale, people aged 15 to 24 years (60%), manual
page 7
workers and citizens who completed their education by the age of 15 (59% each) were least likely to have heard about product recalls in the past 12 months.
- Only 10% of respondents reported having been personally affected by the recall of a non-
food product from the market (unchanged since 2008). 67% of all respondents personally affected took at least one type of action. Almost a third did not take any action. Young people were the least likely to take action (35% ), along with consumers still in education (36%) and those living in large towns or capitals (35%). 62% of consumers affected by a recall contacted the retailer or the producer, while only 2% contacted the national public authorities.
- Consumers who were not personally affected by a product recall were asked to estimate which
would be their action in that case. In line with consumers’ actual behaviour in that situation, most stated that they would contact the retailer. When referring to hypothetical situations, however, respondents tended to under-report inaction (only 12% stated that they would take no action, while the EU average among those actually confronted with a product recall reached 27%). The most important difference between anticipated and actual behaviours touched consumers’ organisations: while 18% of respondents who had not been affected by a product recall estimated that they would get in touch with such an organisation, only 3% of those who personally experienced it actually did so. Similarly, 9% of respondents not affected by a product recall said that they would contact national public authorities in that case, while only 3% of those who had actually been affected did so.
- For all financial products (from pensions, savings accounts, investment products, mortgages,
personal loans, shares and bonds, current accounts, credit cards and debit cards), more than half of the respondents thought that they needed to be simplified. This opinion was particularly strong with regards to pensions (71% agreed or strongly agreed that they needed to be simplified), saving accounts (63%), other investment products and mortgages (62% each).Debit cards and credit cards, however, were seen as easier to understand – yet 48% and 53% respectively still felt that they needed simplifying. Country data revealed that Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania had an important proportion of respondents who did not use the listed financial products.
- 41% of EU citizens consider that is easy to compare offers from different banks. 37% perceive
bank offers as difficult to compare, while in 2008 only 29% felt that way. Older consumers are the most likely to deplore bank offers’ lack of transparency (47% of those aged 55 and over think that bank offers are difficult to compare). The variation among countries is very high: in some countries, more than 40% of respondents thought that offers were difficult to compare (in Hungary, France, Italy, Greece, Denmark and Spain, rates varied between 42% and 51%), while in other Member States, more than half considered offers easy to compare (in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Estonia, between 52% and 60% thought so).
- Although bank services are extremely widely used, consumers are fairly unlikely to switch
providers. Indeed, only 14% of consumers tried to or succeeded in switching banks in the past 12 months, however, this figure is up 5 percentage points from 2008, when a similar survey found only 9% of consumers switching bank accounts. Most users are still not interested in switching providers (62%, down from 69% in 2008). Among those who succeeded in switching providers, most respondents thought that it was an easy process, however 2% of bank account owners tried to switch providers but weren’t successful.
- Only 34% of consumers considered different electricity providers’ offers easy to compare, against
45% in 2008. In addition, the proportion of respondents who could not or did not express an opinion on this issue was very large (23% overall, and over 50% in 6 countries) and varied significantly among countries. Many respondents never thought about electricity services in terms of competing providers, therefore the rate of non-responses remained high. Such non- response is primarily boosted by those living in Member States featuring quasi- or de facto monopolistic energy markets; it is still only 10 countries – compared to 9 in 2008 – where at least 5% switched electricity providers, whereas this has been virtually unheard of in 12 Member States.)
page 8
- In the EU, only 12% of consumers switched electricity providers in the last two years
(compared to 8% in 2008). Interestingly, the proportion of respondents who did not switch providers because they were not interested in doing so decreased significantly in the past year (48% in 2009 vs. 61% in 2008). Therefore, there might be a higher interest in switching providers, but other reasons are preventing consumers from doing so. Consumers aged 40-54 were the most likely to attempt to change electricity providers: 19% of all respondents in this age group did so. Self-employed people (19%) and employees (17%) were also more likely to attempt to switch than manual workers (14%) and those not working (13%).
- Fewer respondent that previously said that electricity services have been prone to price increases.
In 2008, 58% of consumers reported price increases. In 2009, a smaller proportion of respondents (38%) said that their provider had increased its price, and 8% even saw a decrease in prices (vs. 4% in 2008). Interestingly, a much larger proportion of respondents could not tell whether prices had increased or decreased in the past 12 months (25% in 2009 vs. 6% in 2008). In 11 countries, over half of the respondents reported price increases. The proportion was highest in Estonia (77%), Greece and Hungary (69% both). At the other end of the range, under 20% of respondents stated that prices had increased in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. In Austria, France, Luxembourg and Denmark, more than 3 in 10 respondents could not tell if the price had changed or not. In two countries, however, over 1 in 5 respondents reported decreases in electricity prices: the Netherlands (23%) and Ireland (31%).
page 9
1. Distance shopping and cross-border purchases In this chapter we focus on EU consumers’ experience of distance purchases, both within and beyond the borders of their country of residence. We also consider cross-border purchases made on the occasion of a holiday, business or shopping trip. Three ways of distance shopping were investigated in this survey: distance purchases made on the Internet, by telephone and by post.
1.1. Distance shopping and cross-border purchases on the Internet, by post and by telephone
The most common way of distance shopping used by EU consumers was the Internet (websites, email, etc.). Overall, in the past 12 months, 38% of all EU consumers made a distance purchase on the Internet, while 23% used the post (catalogues, mail order, etc.) and 14% made a distance purchase by telephone. Compared to the results of Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 20062 and 20083, we can see an increase in the level of distance shopping made on the Internet over the 12 months preceding the Fl282 survey. The proportion of EU consumers who reported making a distance purchase in the last 12 months using the Internet increased from 27% in 2006 and 33% in 2008 to 38% in the current survey (up 11 percentage point from 2006 to 2009). However, a decrease was observed in the share of EU consumers who made a distance purchase by post (-5 compared to 2008) or by telephone (-2) in the last 12 months.
27
27
15
By phone
By phone
38
23
14
By phone
(02-03/2008)
Fl282 (2009): Q1_A/B/C. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the past 12 months, by distance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere via the Internet (website, email, etc.) / by phone / by post (catalogues, mail order, etc.) ?
Base: all respondents, % of ‘Yes’ answers, EU27
EBS 298 (2008): QC1.1/2/3. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the last 12 months, in (OUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere in any of the following ways? - Via the Internet (website, email, etc.) / By phone / By post
(catalogues, mail order, etc.) Base: all respondents, % of ‘Yes’ answers, EU27
EBS 252 (2006): QB1.1/2/3. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the last 12 months, in (OUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere. – Via the internet (website, email, etc.) / By phone / By post (catalogues, mail order, etc.)
Base: all respondents, % of ‘Yes’ answers, EU25
EB Special 252
1.1.1. Distance shopping via the Internet
The share of respondents who made at least one purchase on the Internet in the last 12 months largely varies from more than 50% in countries like the UK (57%), Sweden (56%), Denmark (55%) and Ireland (53%) to only 11% in Bulgaria or 12% in Romania and Portugal.
2 Special Eurobarometer 252 / Wave 65.1, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs252_en.pdf 3 Special Eurobarometer 298 / Wave 69.1, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_298_en.pdf
page 10
57 56 55 53 49 48 48 48 46
42 41 40 40 38 30 29 29 28 28 28 27
23 20 16 15
B G
Q1_A. Please tell me if you ha ve purchased any goods o r services in the past 12 months, by d istance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere via the Internet (website, email, etc.)?
Base: al l re spondents, % of ‘Yes’ answers by country
Distance purchase in the past 12 months via the Internet (website , email, etc.)
As expected, in all EU countries, having an Internet connection at home significantly increased respondents’ likelihood of purchasing goods or services from a distance. In the last 12 months, 54% of all EU consumers who have access to the Internet at home bought something online. However, the ranking of countries as regards the share of consumers who made distance purchases via the Internet is very similar whether we use all respondents as a basis or just those who have access to the Internet at home. The practice of online distance shopping for those who have access to the Internet at home is very widespread among those living in the UK (73%), Germany (70%) and Sweden (65%) and less common among those living in Bulgaria (20%), Portugal (22%) and Romania (25%).
73 70 65 62 59 58 58 57 56 56 56 55 54 53
48 46 43 38 38 37 36 35 33
28 27 25 22 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
N L F I
P T
B G
Q1_A. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the past 12 months, by distance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere via the Internet (website, email, etc.)?
Base: those who have Internet connection at home, % of ‘Yes’ answers by country
Distance purchase in the past 12 months via the Internet (website, email, etc.)
In terms of socio-demographic factors we observed the following relations:
• Men are slightly more likely to make distance purchases on the Internet than women (42% of men compared to 33% of women)
• Age and education have a significant influence on distance shopping behaviour. Consumers aged 25 to 39 and those who stayed the longest in full-time education are the most likely to buy over the Internet (about 55% of each category), while only 18% of those aged 55 or more, and 10% of those with the lowest level of education purchased anything on the Internet in the 12 months prior to the survey.
• Employees are the most likely to make distance purchases on the Internet (57%), while those not working are the least likely to do so (25%). The corresponding proportions for self- employed respondents and manual workers are 50% and 33%, respectively.
The Internet is still used to make distance purchases mainly from domestic sellers/providers. Overall, in the last 12 months, one third of all EU consumers made a distance purchase on the Internet from a
page 11
seller/provider located in their country of residence. The level of cross-border online shopping in EU countries has remained quite low since the 2008 survey: 8% of EU’s consumers bought goods or services via the Internet in the last 12 months from a seller/provider located in another EU Member State, up 1 percentage point on last year’s figure. Altogether, the proportion of those reporting a distance purchase on the Internet has grown by 5 percentage points if we include both domestic and foreign providers.
30
7
4
66
1
Yes, from a seller/provider located in another EU country
Yes, from a seller/provider located outside the EU
No
DK/NA
33
8
4
62
0
Yes, from a seller/provider located in a nother EU country
No
DK/NA
Fl282 (07/2009) EB Special 298 (02-03/2008)
Fl282 (2009): Q1_A. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the past 12 months, by d istance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere via the Internet (website, email, etc.)?
Base: al l respondents, % EU27
EBS 2 98 (2008): QC1.1. Please tell me if you have purcha sed a ny goods or services in the last 12 months, in (OUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere in any of the following wa ys? - Via the Internet (website, email, etc.)
Focusing again solely on respondents who had Internet access at home, a majority reported having bought goods or services via the Internet in the last 12 months (54% - see above). Almost half (48%) of respondents who have access to the Internet at home made a distance purchase from a seller/provider located in their country of residence, 11% bought goods or services via the Internet from a seller/provider located in another EU Member State and 6% from a seller/provider located outside the EU.
51
13
7
44
0
No
DK/NA
48
11
6
46
0
No
DK/NA
Fl282 (07/2009) EB Special 298 (02-03/2008)
Fl282 (2009): Q1_A. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the past 12 months, by distance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere via the Internet (website, email, etc.)?
Base: who have internet access at home, % EU27
EBS 298 (2008): QC1.1. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the last 12 months, in (OUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere in any of the following ways? - Via the Internet (website, email, etc.)
Base: who have internet access at home, % EU27
The highest levels of cross-border distance shopping via the Internet were observed in Malta (48%), Luxemburg (47%) and Ireland (44%) – three small open economies – while the lowest levels were found in Hungary (5%), Bulgaria (4%) and Romania (3%).
page 12
1.1.2. Distance shopping by telephone
14% of EU consumers bought goods and services by telephone in the 12 months before the study. The proportion of consumers who purchased goods and services by phone varies from around a quarter of respondents in countries like the UK (27%), Germany (26%) and Finland (23%) to only 4-5% in Portugal, Italy and Bulgaria.
27 26 23 22
17 16 15 14 14 14 13 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 6 6 5 5 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
G
Q1_B. Please tell me if you ha ve purchased any goods o r services in the past 12 months, by d istance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere by phone?
Distance purchase in the past 12 months by phone
Overall, compared to 2008, a 2 percentage points decrease in the proportion of consumers who made distance purchases by phone was recorded. The level of cross-border purchases by phone remained very low (around 1% of all EU consumers), with the highest figures found again in Luxemburg (8%) and Ireland (6%) as well as Austria (3%).
15
1
1
83
0
No
DK/NA
No
DK/NA
Fl282 (07/2009) EB Special 298 (02-03/2008)
Fl282 (2009): Q1_B. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the past 12 months, by distance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere by phone?
EBS 298 (2008): QC1.2. Please tell me if you have purcha sed any goods or services in the last 12 months, in (OUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere in any of the following ways? – By phone
1.1.3. Distance shopping by post
Compared to the 2008 figure, the share of EU consumers who made distance purchases by post in the last 12 months decreased by around 5 percentage points, to 23%. The vast majority of those who purchased goods and services by post made their transactions from sellers/providers located in their home country. Only 1% of EU consumers altogether made cross-border purchases by post.
page 13
No
DK/NA
22
1
0
77
0
No
DK/NA
Fl282 (07/2009) EB Special 298 (02-03/2008)
Fl282 (2009) : Q1_C. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the past 12 months, by distance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere by post ( catalogues, mail order, etc.)?
EBS 298 (2008): QC1.3. Please tell me if you have purcha sed any goods or services in the last 12 months, in (OUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere in a ny of the following ways? - By post ( catalogues, mail o rder, etc.)
At country level, the highest shares of consumers who purchased goods or services by post in the last 12 months were found in Austria, Germany and Estonia (37% each). On the other hand, the lowest scores for distance shopping by post were observed in Italy (10%), Bulgaria and Cyprus (5% each).
37 37 37 34 33 29 28 27 25 24 24 23 22 22 19 19 18 18
13 13 13 12 11 11 11 10 5 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
G C Y
Q1_C. Please tell me if you ha ve purchased any goods o r services in the past 12 months, by distance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere by post (catalogues, mail order, etc.) ?
Distance purchase in the past 12 months by post (catalogues, mail order, e tc.)
As regards cross-border purchases by post, the largest scores were recorded in Luxemburg (17%) and Estonia (11%), nearly all of transactions by post being made from sellers/providers in other EU countries.
1.1.4. Overall level of distance shopping
Taking into account all forms of distance shopping investigated in this survey (Internet, post and telephone) we found that in the last 12 months 52% of all EU consumers made at least one distance purchase. There are large variations between countries on this point. Thus, the largest shares of consumers who made at least one distance purchase were found in Germany (77%), the UK (73%), Austria and Sweden (69% each). On the other hand, distance shopping was least common among Romanians (24%), Portuguese (22%) and Bulgarians (17%).
page 14
77 73
53 52 52 51 51 49 46
40 38 37 33 33
27 25 24 22 17
0
20
40
60
80
100
R O
P T
B G
Q1_A/B/C. Please tell me if you have purchased any goods o r services in the past 12 months, by d istance in (YOUR COUNTRY) or elsewhere via the I nternet (website, email, etc.) / by phone / by po st (catalogues, mail order, etc.) ?
Respondents have made at least one distance purch ase
A majority of distance purchases were made from sellers/providers located in the buyer’s home country. On average, 49% of all EU consumers made at least one distance purchase domestically, with substantial variations among Member States. In Germany (75%), the UK (70%) and Sweden (66%), over two-thirds of consumers had made at least one distance purchase domestically in the past 12 months, while at the other end, this proportion remained below a fifth in Portugal (18%), Bulgaria (15%) and Cyprus (10%). However, in the case of Cyprus (see further), 23% of respondents had made at least one cross-border distance purchase within the EU, which is over twice the EU average (9%).
75 70
54 51 50 49 48 45 42 42
37 35 34 32 32 26 23 23 23 23 22
18 15
R O
P T
B G
C Y
Bas e: all res pondents, % of ‘Yes, from a s eller/provider located in (OUR COUNTRY)’ answers by country
Respondents have made at least one distance purch ase domestically
Consumers in Luxemburg (52%), Austria (38%), Ireland (35%) and Malta (34%) were overall the most likely to make distance purchases in other EU countries, while the share dropped to less than 1 in 20 in Hungary (4%), Italy (4%), Romania (4%) and Bulgaria (2%).
page 15
23 19
15 15 14 13 13 12 11 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 2 0
20
40
60
80
100
R O
B G
Base: al l respondents, % of ‘Yes, from a sel ler/provider located in another EU country’ answers by country
Respondents have made at least one distance purch ase cross-border in the EU
This survey also measured the approximate total value of goods or services purchased from a distance from sellers/providers located in other EU countries. Respondents who had made at least one cross- border distance purchase in the 12 months prior to the survey were asked how much roughly they spent. Across the EU, 4 out of 10 consumers who made at least one cross-border distance purchase spent between €100 and €500 for goods and services offered by sellers/providers located in other EU countries. As was the case in 2008, those consumers who have made cross- border purchases tend to spend less than €500 on a yearly basis (70% vs. 63% in 2008) and only very few spend more than €1000 (12% vs. 10% in 2008). Consumers of Italy, Latvia and Estonia spent less than €100 when making a distance purchase from another EU country. On the other hand, Romanians, Bulgarians, Poles and Austrians tended to spend more when distance shopping from another EU country. However, the number of respondents who had made a cross-border purchase within the EU in the past 12 months was fairly small in Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland; as a result, numbers must be treated with caution. In the case of countries with larger proportions of consumers who made distance purchases in other EU countries (Luxemburg, Austria, Ireland and Denmark) the total amount of money spent on a yearly basis tend to be higher than the EU-wide average.
Approximate total value of goods or services
purchased by distance from another EU country
30
40
9
12
8
DK/NA
Q1A. You said you bought something by distance (by phone, po st or internet) from another EU country. Please tell me how much you spent in total on the items you bought by distance in
the last 12 months, even if it’s an approxima te amount. Base : who have made at least one EU cr oss -border purchase , % EU27
page 16
57 51 45 37 35 35 34 34 34 34 31 30 30 28 28 28 28 27 24 23 23 22 22 21 19 19 17
10
30 34 47 45
30 46
23 13
L U
P T
C Z
C Y
D K
A T
P L *
B G *
R O *
Less than €100 Between €100 and €500 Between €500 and €1,000 More than €1,000 DK/NA
Q1A. You said you bought something by distance (by phone, post or internet) from another EU country. Please tell me how
much you spent in total on the items you bought by distance in the last 12 months, even if it’s an approximate amount.
Base: who have made at least one EU cross-border purchase, % by country
* the sample includes less than 50 respondents
Approximate total value of goods or services purchased bydistance from another EU country
1.2. Cross-border shopping while on holiday, shopping or business trip
EU consumers are more likely to make cross-border purchases face-to-face, i.e. when they are on holiday, shopping or business trips, rather than online, by mail order or by telephone. In the last 12 months, almost 1 in 4 EU consumers (24%) purchased goods in another EU country, while, as mentioned before, only 9% made a distance cross- border purchase within the EU. Purchasing goods in other EU Member States appeared most widespread among consumers from Luxemburg (60%), Denmark (50%) and Ireland (48%), and least common among consumers of Spain (15%), Bulgaria (15%) and Portugal (12%). In terms of socio-demographic factors, age, education and occupational status had a significant influence on cross-border purchase behaviour in EU. Thus, those aged 15-24 and 25-39 were found to be more likely to have purchased goods in the last 12 months from another EU country (31-32%) and the same stood true for those who stayed longest in full-time education or were still studying (36-37%) and for self-employed respondents or employees (34-36%).
Purchasing of goods while on holiday, shopping or business trip in another EU country
Q2. In the past 12 months have you purcha sed any goods while on holiday, shopping or
business trip in ano ther EU country? Base: all r espondents , % EU27
Yes No DK/NA
24
75
0
page 17
50 48 43
39 36 35 32 32 31 30 30 29 29 28 27 24 24 22 20 20 19 18 17 17 15 15 12
0
20
40
60
80
100
H U
L T
R O
E S
B G
P T
Q2. In the past 12 months ha ve you purchased any goods while on holida y, shopping or business trip in another EU country?
Purchasing of goods while on holiday, shopping or business trip in another EU country
page 18
2.1. Complaints
In the last 12 months, 10% of EU consumers complained to their seller or provider when they encountered problems with items they had bought that year. Another 4% did not complain, even though they had encountered post-sales problems. 85% of respondents declared that they had encountered no problems after having bought items within the last year. Compared to the results from a similar poll conducted in February and March 20084, a significant decrease (of 8 percentage points) can be observed in the proportion of those who encountered problems when buying goods or services. Accordingly there is a significant decrease (of 6 percentage points) of those who complained to their seller or provider. Older consumers (aged 55 and over) and those with the lowest level of education were the least likely to state that they had encountered problems when buying goods or services (8-10%, compared to an EU average of 14%). In the last 12 months, the highest proportions of consumer problems after purchase of an item can be seen in Bulgaria (29%), Hungary (28%) and Poland (25%). Those countries with the lowest proportions of consumers who encountered problems include Ireland, Luxemburg, Italy, Belgium and the UK (all with 9%), Austria (7%) and the Netherlands (8%). Overall, this poll demonstrates that the chances of a consumer having encountered problems in the last year are twice as high for consumers in EU-125 as for EU-15. In the former countries, nearly one in four consumers encountered some form of problem, while only one in eight (or 12%) of consumers of the latter countries experienced the same. At a national level, the highest proportions of consumers who complained to their sellers/providers can be seen in Hungary and Bulgaria (both with 17%). At the opposite end of the scale is Romania with only 5% of consumer complaints, though another 16% of Romanian consumers encountered problems but did not report them. Other countries with high proportions of un-reported consumer problems were Bulgaria (12% unreported problems), Hungary and Poland (11% each), and Latvia, Estonia and the Czech Republic (9% each).
4 Special Eurobarometer 298 / Wave 69.1, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_298_en.pdf 5 EU-12 (or NMS-12): Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta , Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia EU-15: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
Problems encountered when buying something
Q5. In the past 12 months, have you encountered any problem when you bought something [IN COUNTRY]?
Base: all respondents, % EU27
10
4
85
1
Yes - and I complained a bout it to t he seller/provider
Yes - but I did not complain a bout it to the seller/provider
No
DK/NA
page 19
17 17 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 5
11 12
2 2 9 9
4 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 7
3 1
N L
R O
Yes – and I complained about it to the seller/provider
Yes – but I did not complain about it to the seller/provider
Q5. In the past 12 months, have you encountered any problem when you bought something [IN COUNTRY]? Base: all respondents, % by country
Problems encountered when buying something
At EU27 level, those consumers who complained to their sellers/providers are divided into two groups of relatively equal size as regards the satisfaction with the way their complaints were dealt with. 50% of those consumers who complained were “fairly” or “very” satisfied, and 48% were “not very” or “not at all” satisfied. The results are almost identical to those from the 2008 survey, and there is therefore no reason to suspect any significant change has occurred between the two surveys. Although across all socio-demographic categories almost equal groups of respondents were satisfied or dissatisfied with the way their complaint was dealt with; this was not the case for self-employed respondents: only 42% of these respondents were “fairly” or “very” satisfied, while 54% were “not very” or “not at all” dissatisfied. Those consumers most satisfied with the way their complaints were dealt with were to be found in Portugal (66%), Lithuania (62%) and Finland (62%). On the other hand, the majority of respondents in Spain (70%), Bulgaria (59%) and Greece (59%) were not satisfied with the seller/provider’s response to their complaint. It should be kept in mind, however, that the bases in a few countries are too small for a statistically reliable analysis and the figures should thus only be considered as indicative.
Satisfaction with the way complaints were dealt with by the seller/provider
Q6A. In general, were you satisfied or not with the way your complaint( s) was (were) dealt with by the seller/provider?
Base: those who encountered problems and complained about them to the se ll er/provider, % EU27
20
30
20
28
2
DK/NA
page 20
26 16
33 24
12 21 25
5
22 28
37 27 22
22
13 21 15
25 21 26
20 15 23
28 32 32
39 44 47
3 3 4 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 3 5 1 2 2 0 3 7 0 1 2 0 1 1 2
0
20
40
60
80
B G
E S
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Not very satisfied Not at all satisfied DK/NA
Q6A. In general, were you satisfied or not with the way your complaint(s) was (were) dealt with by the seller/provider? Base: those who encountered problems and complained about them to the seller/provider, % by country
Satisfaction with the way complaints were dealt with by the seller/provider
To take the EU average, almost half (46%) of those who complained but were not satisfied with the way their complaint was dealt with did not take any further action to solve the problem they encountered. Young consumers were the least likely to take action (57% did not take action), along with consumers still in education (60%) and those with the lowest level of education (54%). The main actions taken by the rest of the EU consumers unsatisfied by the way their seller/provider dealt with their complaint (54%), were either to take advice from a consumer association (15%), to complain to a public authority (9%) or consult a lawyer (8%). Only 6% took the matter to court or to arbitration, mediation or conciliation body.
Actions taken after complaints were dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner
46
15
9
8
3
3
26
2
You took no further action
You asked for the advice of a comsumer association/consumer help desk
You complained to a public authority (consumer authority, regulator or local/regional authority)
You asked for the advice of a lawyer
You brought the matter to court
You brought the matter to an arbitration, mediation or conciliation body
Other
DK/NA
Q7. How did you proceed further? Base: those who were not satisfied with the way complaints were dealt with , % EU27
Substantial variations can be seen regarding the proportion of consumers who did not take any further action after their complaint was not dealt with in a satisfactory manner. On the one hand, in Greece, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, more than two thirds of those who were unsatisfied with the way their complaint was solved did not take any further action. On the other hand, in Finland, the Netherlands and Belgium, the percentage of those who did not do anything else after their complaint was not dealt with satisfactorily was only 31%. As the question about actions taken after complaints were not dealt with in a satisfactory manner was only presented to a subset of each national sample, some caution is, however, needed when interpreting the results at the national level.
page 21
72 68 68 66 64 59 59 56 54 54 51 49 46 46 46 45 44 43 43 42 41 41 39 36 33 31 31 31
0
20
40
60
80
100
L V
D E
E E
N L
B E
Q7. How did you proceed further? Base: those who were not satisfied with the way complaints were dealt with, % of mentions by country
Took no further action after complaints were dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner
For half of those EU consumers who complained to their sellers/providers and were satisfied with the way their complaint was dealt with, the most important step the retailer took to resolve their problem was the replacement of the product purchased. For 20%, the solution was a full refund, while 14% had their product repaired. In 4% of cases, those who complained had the price of their purchase reduced.
Most important thing that the retailer did to solve complaint in a satisfactory manner
51
20
14
4
11
1
Other
DK/NA
Q8. What was the most important thing that the retailer did to solve your complaint satisfactorily?
Base: those who were satisfied with the way complaints were dealt with, % EU27
Although some caution is again needed to interpret individual country differences6, it appeared that respondents from all EU countries cited a replacement of the product as the main way to solve their problem in a satisfactory manner. This solution was mentioned most often by consumers in Estonia (70%), Romania (65%), Greece (65%), Portugal (63%) and Lithuania (63%). Replacement was however cited less often in Poland (42%), Belgium (41%) and Malta (40%). Consumers in Malta (31%), Belgium (27%), Cyprus (25%) and Portugal (25%) mentioned (more often than in other Member States) a repair of the product purchased. Countries that favoured reimbursement as a secondary solution to their complaint included Poland (31%), Bulgaria (27%) and Ireland (27%). Reimbursement was least mentioned by consumers from Romania (2%), Italy (3%) and Malta (5%).
6 This question was only presented to respondents who filed a complaint and who were satisfied with the way their complaint was dealt with.
page 22
70 65 65 63 63 58 58 56 55 55 54 53 52 51 51 51 51 50 48 47 47 46 46 45 44 42 41 40
12 14
20 25
25 20
2 9 10 18
5
20
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 1 1 3 2 0 4
0
20
40
60
80
E S
U K
H U
B G
D K
C Z
N L
P L
B E
M T
Replaced the product Repaired the product Reimbursed Reduced the price Other DK/NA
Q8. What was the most important thing that the retailer did to solve your complaint satisfactorily? Base: those who were satisfied with the way complaints were dealt with, % by country
Most important thing that the retailer did to solve complaint in a satisfactory manner
Regarding the last 12 months, for a majority of EU consumers, the quality of the product/service purchased was the main reason why they complained, either to their sellers/providers or to a third party (this problem was mentioned by 59% of respondents). Nonetheless, a wide spectrum of different reasons were invoked as to why consumers had complained, which in turn reflects the assortment of different problems consumers are confronted with. At a EU level, 12% of those who encountered a problem complained about the after sales service or the compensation and 13% complained about delivery or installation of the product. 11% of those who complained had encountered problems relating to the price, tariff or the invoice, and 9% complained about the contract terms or the guarantees they received. Two other reasons (each indicated by 8% of those consumers who had complained in the last year) related either to unfair commercial practices (misleading or fraudulent advertisements, aggressive selling etc.), or to a lack of clear information. The difficulties in changing/switching provider induced 4% of responders to complain, while incidents related to unsafe products or services; to ethical or environmental issues; or to privacy issues, all provoked complaints to varying degrees (their proportion varying between 1% and 3%). The proportion of those who complained as a result of the poor quality of the product/service purchased varied widely between Member States: from 81% in Lithuania, 80% in Slovakia and 77% in Estonia, to a mere 27% in Belgium. It should however be noted that the average percentage of those who complained about the quality of the product/service at an EU level is significantly skewed by the low percentages recorded in some of the most highly populated EU countries: Italy (54%), France (53%) and Spain (43%). As for the other questions in this section, some caution is, nevertheless, needed when interpreting the above-mentioned results.
Main reason for the most recent complaint
59
12
13
11
9
8
8
3
1
2
4
11
2
After sales or redress
Price, tariff, invoice or bill
Contract terms or guarantees
Lack o f clear information
Incidence related to unsafe products or services
Ethical o r environmental aspects
Privacy issues
Other
DK/NA
Q9. Thinking about t he most recent complaint you made to a seller or provider o r to a third party, what was the main reason for the complaint?
Base: those who encountered problems and complained about them to the se ller/provider, % EU27
page 23
81 80 77 74 72 71 71 70 68 68 68 68 68 66 64 63 63 62 61 60 60 60 59 56 54 53
43
27
0
20
40
60
80
100
R O
L U
M T
H U
E L
P T
D E
U K
E S
B E
Q9. Thinking about the most recent complaint you made to a seller or provider or to a third party, what was the main reason for the complaint?
Base: those who encountered problems and complained about them to the seller/provider, % of mentions by country
Main reason for the most recent complaint: Quality of the product or sevice
Those who did not complain to their seller/provider when they encountered a problem were asked for their reasons for not doing so. The two most commonly invoked reasons were, firstly, the lack of confidence in getting a satisfactory remedy to the problem encountered (32%), and secondly, the smallness of the sum involved (26%). Nearly 1 in 10 of those who did not complain declared that they did not know where to register a complaint, and another 4% did not complain to the seller/provider but went straight to a third party. One in four respondents who did not complain cited other reasons (such as ‘the sellers had nothing to do with it’, ‘it wasn’t that important’, ‘did not want to go back to the shop’, ‘it takes too much time to file a complaint’ etc.). Respondents who completed their education by the age of 15 were considerably more likely to answer that they did not complain because they did not know where to register a complaint (22% vs. 5% of those completing their studies after the age of 20).
The main reason for not complaining about problems encountered
32
26
9
4
25
4
It was unlikely you would get a satisfactory remedy to the problem you encountered
The sums involved were too small
You did not know how or where to complain
You did not complain to the seller/provider but went straight to a third party
Other
DK/NA
Q6B. What was the main reason why you did not file a complaint? Base: those who encountered problems but did not complain about them to the
seller/provider, % EU27
With regard to variations between countries as to why consumers did not register complaints, the focus will be on Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia where there is a large enough base of evidence to draw reliable conclusions. Thus, in Bulgaria - the country with the largest proportion of consumers who encountered problems - the main reason (invoked by half of those who did not complain) was the lack of confidence in obtaining a satisfactory remedy. The same reason was mentioned by 43% of those Polish respondents who did not complain. In Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, the percentage of those invoking this reason is similar to the percentage of those who declared that the
page 24
sums involved were too small. In Slovenia and especially in Estonia, consumers tended rather to invoke the small sums involved as their main reason for not complaining.
50 45 45 42 38 32 32 32 30 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 22 21 21 19 19 16 12 11 10 4 0 0
26
49
15
3 2 0 4 4 0 4 7 1 0 3 3
18
P L
A T
E S
N L IE L U
It was unlikely you would get a satisfactory remedy to the problem you encountered The sums involved were too small You did not know how or where to complain You did not complain to the seller/provider but went straight to a third party Other DK/NA
Q6B. What was the main reason why you did not file a complaint? Base: those who encountered problems but did not complain about them to the seller/provider, % by country
The main reason for not complaining about problems encountered
2.2. Aspects of consumer protection
When presented with various statements about the protection of their rights as consumers, EU consumers were most likely to agree that they would be more willing to defend their rights if they could join other consumers complaining about the same thing (28% strongly agree, 50% agree), and were least likely to agree that it is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through the courts (3% strongly agree, 19% agree). Almost two thirds of EU consumers (64%) have confidence in independent consumer organisations to protect their rights, while the proportion of those trusting public authorities to protect their rights as consumers is significantly lower (54%). Slightly less than 6 in 10 EU consumers agree that, in general, sellers/providers respect their rights as consumers, and 54% feel that they are adequately protected by the existing consumer protection measures. On the other hand, only 38% of EU consumers believe it is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through an arbitration, mediation or conciliation body. The large proportions of non- responses to the questions covering attitudes towards resolving disputes through the courts, or through arbitration, mediation or conciliation bodies, suggests that many EU consumers have doubts, or lack knowledge, about the functioning of dispute-resolution bodies. Compared to the results from a similar poll, EBS298 in 2008, some small changes can be observed in the opinions that EU consumers hold about the protection of their consumer rights. A marginal increase of 3 percentage points can be observed in those whose replies indicate that they feel adequately protected by the existing measures to protect consumers. Equally, EU consumers are less convinced today than in 2008 about how easy it is to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through the courts (22% agree in 2009 compared with 30% in 2008). Less than half of the EU consumers polled (39%) state that they have changed their consumer behaviour as result of a media story.
page 25
33
16
9
10
9
8
6
43
48
50
44
42
31
24
9
17
25
27
29
28
32
5
7
8
10
10
13
18
10
12
8
9
10
20
20
You would be more willing to defend your rights in court if you could join with other consumers who were complaining about …
You trust independent consumer organisations to protect your r ights as a
consumer
In general, sellers/providers in (OUR COUNTRY) respect your rights as a
consumer
You trust public authorities to protect your rights as a consumer
Yot feel that you are adequately protected by existing measures to protect consumers
You have changed your consumer behaviour as a result of a media story (e.g.
changed shop or product)
It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through an arbitration,
mediation or conciliation body
It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through the courts
Not asked
28
14
8
9
8
11
6
3
50
50
50
45
46
28
32
19
11
18
27
26
27
37
25
26
4
6
7
11
9
19
10
12
8
12
8
9
9
6
27
39
You would be more willing to defend your rights if you could join with other consumers who were complaining about the same thing
You trust independent consumer organisations to protect your rights as a
consumer
In general, sellers/providers in (OUR COUNTRY) respect your rights as a
consumer
You trust public authorities to protect your rights as a consumer
Yot feel that you are adequately protected by existing measures to protect consumers
You have changed your consumer behaviour as a result of a media story (e.g. changed
shop or product)
It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through an arbitration,
mediation or conciliation body
It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through the courts
Fl282 (2009): Q10. For each of the fo llowing sta tements, p lease tell me if you agree or disa gree with it. In (OUR COUNTRY)... Base : a ll respondents , % EU27
EBS 298 (2008): QC20. For each of the following statements, p lease tell me if you agree or disa gree with it. In (OUR COUNTRY)... Base : a ll respondents , % EU27
Fl282 (07/2009) EB Special 298 (02-03/2008)
Aspects of consumer protection
Fl282/EBS298: Strongly a gree/Tot ally agree Agree/ Tend to ag ree
Disagree/Tend to disagree Strongly disagree/Totally disagree DK/NA
In response to the statement, “It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through an arbitration, mediation or conciliation body”, consumers in the UK (54%), Luxemburg (53%), Ireland (52%) and Cyprus (51%) are most likely to agree that it is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through an arbitration, mediation or conciliation body. Lowest levels of agreement are to be found in Latvia (22%), Slovakia (21%) and Bulgaria (16%). Consumers in Nordic countries such as Sweden and Denmark, but also consumers of Germany and Belgium, tend to be relatively hesitant about the functioning of this kind of bodies in solving disputes with sellers/providers.
10 11 7 6 8 7 4 8 8 8 3 2 6 5 6 5 7 10
2 10
2 5 5 6 2 3 3 1
44 42 45 45 39 37 39 33 34 32 36 35 32 32 28 28 26 22
29 21
15
47
E S
S E
L T
L V
S K
B G
St rongly agree Agree Disag re e St rongly disa gree DK/N A
Q10. For each of the following statements, please tell me if you a gree or disagree with it. In (OUR COUNTRY)... Base: al l re spondents, % by country
It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/prov iders through an arbitration, med iation or conciliation body (malfunctioning goods, late/non-de livery, e tc.)
page 26
The level of agreement with the statement “It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through the courts” is highest in Ireland (40%) and lowest in Sweden (10%). The most disagreement with the statement is to be found in Greece (59%), Malta (60%) and Slovenia (65%).
7 7 7 6 4 4 5 2 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 4 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 2
33 25 24 23 24 24 23 25 21 21 19 17 18 18 17 15 14 15 14 11 11 13 12 12 12 10 11 8
17 22 19
18 30 33
L T
S E
It is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/prov iders through the courts
Consumers of Denmark (80%), Austria (78%) and France (75%) are the most likely to have confidence in independent consumer organisations to protect their rights. At the lower end of the spectrum are Bulgaria, with only 3 in 10 consumers having confidence in independent consumer organisations, and Lithuania and Romania with confidence levels of 43% and 45%, respectively. The most likely to distrust independent consumer organisations are the consumers of Bulgaria (48%), Greece (42%) and Slovenia (36%).
21 27 22 20 22
5 16
12 11 7 19
59 51 53 55 53
68 57 49
26
12 14 11 13 10 15 16 18 16 13 15 18
16 20 24 21 21 28
16 31
25 23
3 6 6 5
11 6 17
6 8 7 7 10 10 10 6 11 16 14 12
18 13 10 14 17
6
21
0
20
40
60
80
100
C Y
E L
C Z
L V
P L
S K
R O
L T
B G
People trust independ ent consumer organisations to protect their rights as a consumer
Countries where the public authorities are most trusted to protect the rights of consumers include Finland (76%), Luxemburg (75%), Denmark and the UK (70%). The lowest levels of confidence in the role of public authorities can be observed in the EU-12 countries: Lithuania (26%), Poland (36%) and Bulgaria (38%). Just over half of all respondents in Lithuania, Greece and Slovenia expressed distrust in the public authorities’ protection of their consumer rights.
page 27
4 14
6 12 13
5 9 7 7 10 9 5 5 7 11 7 3 6 7 4 2
60 57 57 51 51 50 48
59 48
43 42 40 33 37 41 34 31 32 24
14 15 21 14 18 23
18 29 17 24 23 25 30 26 28
36
38
6 3
12 18 15 14
6 5 4 6 4 8 10 5 16 12 12
5 7 9 8 4 17
8 17 13 16
B G
P L
L T
People trust public authorities to protect their rights as a consumer
In 4 Member States, at least 7 in 10 respondents agreed that they felt adequately protected by existing measures established to protect consumers: 70% in Ireland, 72% in Finland, 74% in Luxemburg and 78% in the UK. Inversely, consumers in Bulgaria (23%), Greece (29%) and Lithuania (30%) are the least likely to feel protected by existing measures. Similarly, the highest proportion of consumers who “strongly disagree” that they felt protected was seen in Greece (30%). Finally, in Bulgaria about one in four respondents also strongly disagrees with this statement.
17 16 14 14 9 10 18
4 17
8 4 6 10 7 3
9 8 7 8 5 5 3 2 3 5 2 4 3
61 58 58 56 59 57
48 60
44 46
50 47 42 41 45 39 39 38 34 37 36 38 36 33 26 28 25
20
39 37 37 42
9 5 7 10 6 9
9 9 9 10 13 13
9
10 9
12 9
30 24
6 5 7 7 7 5 9 11 14 9 14 13 11 15 7
12 17 15 13 12 10
17 6 4
L V
L T
E L
B G
People feel that they are adequately protected by existing measures to protect consumers
Respondents in the UK (78%), Finland (77%) and Luxemburg (76%) are the most likely to agree that sellers/providers in their country respect consumer rights. In general, respondents who had confidence in public authorities and/or in NGOs had clearly higher trust in retailers as well – this finding was true on EU27 level7 as well as within Member States. The level of agreement with this opinion is lowest in Bulgaria (26%), Cyprus (36%) and Greece (41%). Equally, the highest level of strong disagreement was observed in Bulgaria and Greece, at 20%. One other important observation is that younger consumers, and those who stayed longer in full time education, are marginally more likely to agree with this opinion.
7 On EU27 level, Pearson correlation between trust in retailers (q10f) and confidence in public authorities (q10d) was .367, correlation with confidence in NGOs (q10c) was .321, both significant at the 95% confidence level.
page 28
17 13 16 15 15 16 4 8 9 5 10 11 8 5 5 7 8 6 6 5 3
9 7 5 3 6 2 3
61 64 60 59 58 52 64 58 57 60 54 50 50
52 51 47 46 46 42 43 43 36 36 38 38 35 33
23
11 16 16 18 16 17
26 23 21 25 24 22 27 29 25 27 33 32
31 33 35 38 35 35 41
34 53
4 1 4
3 4 8
3 7 6
13 11 12 7 13 14 10 6 4
13
0
20
40
60
80
100
T S E
D K
L V
S K
H U
E S
P L
R O
P T
M T
C Z
L T
I T
E L
C Y
B G
In general, sellers/providers in country respect consumers’ righ ts
In all Member States (excluding Hungary), a majority of respondents agreed that they would be more willing to defend their rights if they could join with other consumers who were complaining about the same thing. In Hungary only 35% of the respondents agreed with this statement, significantly less than the EU27 average of 78%. Consumers in the UK, Greece and Austria are the most likely to strongly agree; while those in the Netherlands, Lithuania and Romania are the least likely to strongly agree.
48 44
25 25 21 23 21 15 18
26 11 9
51 55 54 53 46 45
47 44 45 51 46
37
45
26
8 8 11 10 9 8 7 11 12 8 5 9 11 11 11 14 12 14 15
14 12 16 15 12 13 10
16
28
2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 7 3
3 4 6 4 3 1 4 3 4
5 3 4 4 8
7 2 20
4 3 3 4 6 5 7 4 6 4 13 10 8 7 10 9 13 8 10 13 16 15 15 19 15
20 26
L U
M T
I T
P T
F I
B E
P L
L V
S K
C Z
R O
B G
E E
L T
H U
People would be more willing to defend their rights if they could join with other consumers who were complaining about the same thing
There are just two countries where at least half of the respondents agreed that they changed their consumer behaviour as a result of a media story: Italy (55%) and Ireland (54%). The lowest levels of agreement with this statement were observed in Luxemburg (27%), the Netherlands (27%), and Austria and Bulgaria (29%). Consumers in France (39%) and Luxemburg (34%) were the most likely to strongly disagree with the influence the media could hold over their consumer behaviour.
page 29
8 10 9 17
10 10 11 11 10 7 8 14 10 7 5
10 8 7 9 7 7 7 10 2
9
36 33 32 23
29 29 28 28 28 29 28 21 25 28 30 22 24 24 21 23 23 22 19
25 18
33 36 45
18 20
23 18
5 3 11 9
20 4
F I
P T
B E
F R
L V
H U
B G
A T
N L
L U
People have changed their consumer behaviour as a result of a media story (e.g. changed shop or product)
Young consumers (15-24 years old) and those still enrolled in education appear to be the most likely to agree with most of the generally positive statements about consumer protection. Conversely, older consumers (age 55 and older) and those who completed their education by the age of 15 are the least likely to agree with most of these statements (the latter respondents are, however, also somewhat more likely to say they did not have an opinion on a topic or that they did not know how to answer). For example, while 66% of young consumers answered that they trust public authorities to protect their rights as a consumer, this proportion decreased to 50% for older consumers (aged 55 and older). Similarly, 64% of respondents still enrolled in education agreed that sellers/providers in their country respect their rights as a consumer, but this proportion decreased to 52% for those who completed their education by the age of 15.
page 30
2.3. Unfair commercial practices8
In this chapter we analyse the respondents’ answers to a set of questions regarding unfair commercial practices and their reaction to it. In the last 12 months, 6 out of 10 EU consumers have come across unsolicited commercial advertisements or offers (cold calls, spam emails etc.). Compared to the results from 2008, there has been a marginal increase of 2 percentage points in those who have been exposed to unfair commercial practices. Moreover, in comparison to the 2008 figures, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of those who came across misleading or deceptive advertisements. From the 2008 survey we can observe that 42% of EU consumers had come across such misleading publicity, while in 2009 the figures have soared to 54% (an increase of 12 percentage points). Equally, 36% of the polled EU consumers stated that they had come across what they believed to be fraudulent advertisements or offers, a full 9 percentage points higher than the proportion observed in 2008.
Unsolicited or misleading advertisments or offers
Q3. Have any of the following happend to you in the past 12 months? Base of option A, B and D: all respondents, % EU27
Base of option C and E: those who came across misleading/fraudulent advertisments or offers, % EU27
60
54
19
36
19
39
43
80
61
81
0
3
0
4
0
calls, spam emails, etc.)
Came across misleading or deceptive advertisements, statements or offers
Responded to an advertisement or offer that turned out to be misleading or deceptive
Came across fraudulent advertisements, statements or offers
Responded to an advertisement or offer that turned out to be fraudulent
Yes No DK/NA
IF YES
IF YES
Furthermore, almost 1 in 5 EU consumers who came across what they believed to be misleading or deceptive advertisements or offers discovered this by actually responding to them. This translates to 10% of all consumers fallen victim to deceiving advertising, slightly more than in 2008 when 9% declared to have taken the same action. Of those who had come across what they believed to be fraudulent advertisements or offers, 19% discovered the fraudulence after having responded to the 8 The exact wording of question Q3 was : We’re now going to talk about Unfair Commercial Practices - for example advertisements which are either unsolicited, misleading or even fraudulent. Misleading or deceptive advertisements are those which contain false information or present factually correct information in a misleading manner about the goods or services to be sold, whereas fraudulent advertisements actually attempt to obtain money without selling anything, for example a lottery scam. Q3 Have any of the following happened to you in the past 12 months? A. You came across unsolicited commercial advertisements, statements or offers (cold calls, spam emails,
commercial SMS, etc.) B. You came across misleading or deceptive advertisements, statements or offers ASK C IF YES TO ITEM B C. You responded to a advertisement or offer that turned out to be misleading or deceptive D. You came across fraudulent advertisements, statements or offers ASK E IF YES TO ITEM D E. You responded to an advertisement or offer that turned out to be fraudulent
page 31
advertisement or offer. This figure represents another small increase since 2008 when 6% came across such an experience, the current figure (projected to all consumers) is 7%. Men, those who are self-employed or employees, consumers who have stayed the longest in full-time education and those living in large towns or capitals are more likely to have come across unsolicited, misleading or fraudulent advertisements than other demographic groups. However, almost no differences were seen in terms of responding to such advertisements.
Of the 27 EU Member States, France and Spain recorded the highest levels of consumers being exposed to unsolicited commercial advertisements or offers: 7 in 10 consumers of these two countries came across these kinds of unfair practices. Germany takes third place with 68% of consumers having come across such unsolicited advertisements/offers. In contrast, those least likely to be exposed to such unwanted commercial practices were the consumers of Romania with only 31% of Romanians being exposed to unsolicited advertising and offers. Consumers living in the EU-15 are more likely to come across unwanted advertisements or offers (with an average of 62%) than consumers of EU-12 countries (53%).
71 70 68 66 65 65 64 64 63 62 61 60 58 56 55 55 55 54 54 53 52 52 51 51 51 48 43
31
0
20
40
60
80
100
B E
S K
P T
U K
N L
L U
C Y
B G
R O
Q3. Have any of the following happend to you in the past 12 months? Base: all respondents, % of ‘Yes’ answers by country
Experience with perceived unsolicited commercial advertisements, statements or offers (cold calls, spam emails, commercial SMS, etc.)
Spaniards (69%), Greeks (68%) and Germans (64%) are the most likely to have come across what they believed to be misleading or deceptive advertisements or offers, while Latvians (33%) and Lithuanians (37%) are the least likely to state that they have come across such practices.
69 68 64 61
58 58 58 57 56 55 55 55 54 52 52 50 49 48 48 47 45 45 44 44 43 42 37
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
B E IT
L V
Experience with perceived misleading or deceptive advertisements, statements or offers
page 32
Regarding consumers who responded to an advertisement or offer that turned out to be misleading or deceptive, the highest scores were recorded in Estonia (27%), Cyprus (26%), Ireland and Romania (25%), whilst Sweden (15%), Denmark (11%) and Luxemburg (8%) tended to see lower levels of responses to misleading or deceptive advertisements.
27 26 25 25 24 23 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 16 15 11 8
0
20
40
60
80
100
B E
U K
L T
D E
N L
S E
D K
L U
Q3. Have any of the following happend to you in the past 12 months? Base: those who came across misleading advertisements or offers, % of ‘Yes’ answers by country
Experience with reponding to an advertisement or offer that turned out to be misleading or deceptive
The largest proportions of consumers who came across what they believed to be fraudulent advertisements or offers were noted in Germany (54%), Sweden (53%) and Greece (51%). Those consumers least likely to state that they have been exposed to such unfair practices were to be found in Italy, Belgium, Romania and Latvia where only one in every five consumers stated that they had been exposed to fraudulent advertisements or offers.
54 53 51 49 49 47 42 42 39 39 37 37 36 36 35 33 33 33 31 30 29
25 25 24 21 21 20 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
L T
U K
M T
F R
L V
R O
B E IT
Experience with perceived fraudulent advertisements, statements or offers
At a national level, consumers in the Czech Republic and Poland (23%), and Austria (22%) tend to be somewhat more likely to respond to advertisements or offers that later turn out to be fraudulent. At the opposite end of the spectrum are Luxemburg (at only 8%) and Sweden (9%), with the lowest proportion of consumers who responded to such advertisements or offers.
page 33
23 23 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 19 19 19 19 19 18 17 17 16 15 15 14 14 14 14 9 8
0
20
40
60
80
100
L V
F R
S K
D K
S E
L U
Q3. Have any of the following happend to you in the past 12 months? Base: those who came across fraudulent advertisement or offer, % of ‘Yes’ answers by country
Experience with reponding to an advertisement or offer that turned out to be fraudulent
Throughout the EU, the most frequently noted of the various types of unfair commercial practices were the so called “free products”: 54% of all EU consumers have come across this unfair practice in the past 12 months. Misleading prize draws/lotteries, and misleading or aggressive telephone selling are other frequently noted practices that take place at an EU level, with more than 4 in 10 respondents declaring that they had come across them in the last 12 months. More than one third of the respondents also stated that they had encountered unfair practices such as misleading prices or misleading health claims, and 3 in 10 of all EU consumers said they came across omission of information regarding expensive telephone numbers, or misleading environmental/eco-friendly claims. Also, almost one in four EU consumers declared that they had been exposed to misleading or aggressive doorstep selling. The least frequently stated fraudulent commercial practices at EU level were pyramid schemes and unsolicited deliveries, with only 1 in 10 respondents saying they had come across them in the last year.
Came across various unfair commercial practices in the past 12 months
54
46
44
36
34
31
30
24
12
10
So called "free" products (products advertised as "free" when in fact you have to buy another thing to get the "free" product)
Misleading prize draws or misleading lotteries
Misleading or aggressive telephone selling
Misleading price e.g. hidden charges
Misleading health claims
Misleading green claims
Pyramid schemes
Unsolicited deliveries (delivering something to you which you did no t order)
Q4. Unfair commercial practices can take ma ny different forms. For each of the following unfair commercial pra ctices, could you tell me whether you came across this practice in the past 12 months, in (OUR COUNTRY) or in o ther EU countries?
Base: al l re spondents, % of ”Yes” answers, EU27
In 22 out of 27 Member States, so called “free products” were the most frequent unfair commercial practice consumers had noted in the last 12 months. Consumers in Sweden (77%), Cyprus (74%), Greece (71%) and the Czech Republic (71%) were the most likely to have come across this unfair practice, while the least likely were the consumers in Latvia (37%), Luxemburg (39%) and Bulgaria (41%).
page 34
Misleading prize draws/lotteries were the most common unfair practices in Austria (66%), Germany (63%), France (53%) and Luxemburg (43%). In the Netherlands, the three most frequently noted unfair practices were experienced in similar proportions: the so called “free” products (55%), misleading prize draws (57%) and misleading telephone selling (58%). This practice of misleading or aggressive telephone selling was also stated by consumers to be very common in Finland (65%), Greece (64%) and Spain (59%). As regards the practice of misleading pricing, the largest proportion of consumers who said that they had been confronted with such practices were to be found in Poland (51%), Ireland (47%) and Romania (39%). Misleading health claims were most commonly mentioned in Sweden (64%), Finland (56%) and the Czech Republic (52%), whilst omission of information regarding expensive telephone numbers was declared most common by consumers in Spain (51%) and Greece (43%).
page 35
Table: Came across various unfair commercial practices in the past 12 months (TOP3 mentions by country)
BE % BG % CZ %
So called "free products" 51 So called "free products" 41 So called "free products" 71
Misleading telephone selling 43 Misleading health claims 38 Misleading health claims 52
Misleading prize draws 33 Misleading prize draws 36 Misleading prize draws 49
DK % DE % EE %
So called "free products" 58 Misleading prize draws 63 So called "free products" 43
Misleading telephone selling 43 Misleading telephone selling 54 Misleading telephone selling 36
Misleading health claims 42 So called "free products" 43 Misleading health claims 33
EL % ES % FR %
So called "free products" 71 So called "free products" 64 Misleading prize draws 53
Misleading telephone selling 64 Misleading telephone selling 59 So called "free products" 52
Misleading prize draws 57 Misleading prize draws 52 Misleading telephone selling 39
IE % IT % CY %
So called "free products" 57 So called "free products" 43 So called "free products" 74
Misleading prize draws 51 Misleading telephone selling 29 Misleading prize draws 48
Misleading price 47 Misleading price 28 Misleading doorstep selling 44
LV % LT % LU %
So called "free products" 37 So called "free products" 42 Misleading prize draws 43
Misleading health claims 31 Misleading prize dr

attitudes towards crossborder sales and consumer protection

Documents