This chapter summarises the findings of the previous sections in order to point to possible gaps. Our results are based on three main research elements. First, on desk research, second, on in-depth interviews with stakeholders and, third, on four interactive workshops that took place in selected EU Member States in spring 2014.
Although the quantity and quality of initiatives differ from country to country dependent on the general level of e-commerce and postal sector developments, the legal frameworks, the overall diffusion of internet applications and innovative capacities in the respective country, some general overall statements can be made and some fields for further action can be identified.
For instance, all countries promote e-retailing and e-commerce through public institutions or sector associations. These activities are usually focused on national business development with delivery aspects usually play a secondary role (if any).
Where the e-commerce market is still developing, activities focus on information, professional training, events, and networking (Poland, Greece, Ireland). Where e-commerce already services a substantial retail market share, initiatives are more specialised and focused on special issues, regions or clusters like e.g. projects for small or medium-sized (e-)retailers or schemes for peripheral regions (Germany, Ireland). It appears that there could be future needs for EU initiatives, depending on the success of Member State initiatives, to promote cross-border e-commerce and to support e-retailers’ efforts to expand their business across borders. This has been actioned for example in projects of DG Enterprise & Industry.127 Promotion initiatives will always benefit from expanding networks and overall initiatives on EU-level but there seems to be no immediate need for dedicated action. It might be noticed, though, that some existing e-commerce initiatives could benefit even more if logistics and delivery aspects were considered jointly.
Different levels of information transparency related to products and prices can be found in each of the countries as this is provided by the carriers themselves. Almost all of them, even smaller couriers, publish their prices and delivery service options on websites where they offer search and query tools. Solutions for more comprehensive information platforms already exist but not on the same level and with the same innovative capacity in every Member State. Moreover, existing information tools do not necessarily address the specific needs of e-retailers, particularly in case of cross-border transactions (e.g. information on delivery, return and payment habits, list of available delivery operators).
127 DG Enterprise & Industry has commissioned a project on fostering digital entrepreneurship in Europe.
One element of this project is to develop a tool with the working title “10 things to know to sell online in the European Union” (see DG Enterprise & Industry, Call for Tender
No. 292/PP/ENT/CIP/13/C/N01C033, Work package 4). The project is still ongoing.
There are not many tariff calculation tools that offer the possibility for e-retailers (or any other customer) to realistically compare prices when researching transporters who they may wish to use for domestic and / or gross border deliveries. Some basic websites exist (Germany, Poland, projected in Greece) but their impact is often limited due the number of carriers’ products or destinations (only national or limited cross-border options) that they provide for comparison. The lack of information transparency is even more evident for cross-border delivery services which are much more complex and difficult to understand than better known domestic delivery services.
Some experts argue that offering basic information on list prices and products is futile because even SME e-retailers get some form of discounts and consequently list price comparison is only a baseline and not suitable for use in business case financials.
Others see a need for initiative to make list-prices and product levels cross-comparable and support e-retailers in their planning of cross-border expansion. Whatever opinion one would follow, as a first result it can be stated that information on shipment options is not consistent, is distributed on many websites and not always available in a user-friendly way.
Transparency at an EU-level is low, although some national tools are publicly available and free of charge. The general topic of interoperability issues is strongly addressed on EU-level and in markets with a significant competition among carriers or small couriers companies (Germany, also Poland and partly Greece). The “regionalisation” of delivery services, i.e. the decoupling of products and countries, has not yet happened. The lack of standards for track & trace, barcodes, address and label formats and the difficulties that occur because of the use of proprietary definitions for products, service conditions, tracking notifications and other terms are considered an obstacle to the development of reliable cross-border e-commerce trade and even the Digital Single Market.
Projects like the European Ecommerce Interconnect Programme for national postal operators or the German Open Postal Alliance, established by courier companies aim at more cooperation between delivery companies. While welcome, such efforts to enhance inter-operability generally promote the Commission’s objectives of an internal market and more cross-border online trade, such systems and agreements must comply to competition rules, in particular where some of the contracting delivery operators have dominant positions in their domestic markets.
Business models by intermediaries like Letmeship or shipcloud in Germany or Sheepla in Poland, and Metapack or Global Freight Solutions (GFS) in the UK, are based on providing delivery management solutions and thus facilitate interoperability between e-retailers and carriers. Emerging new solutions that mainly target small and medium-sized e-retailers (e.g. shipcloud and Sheepla) are particularly important to simplify the handling of deliveries and to optimize the data flow between carriers and e-retailers.
Additionally, they act as “virtual” consolidators and allow e-retailers to access better price conditions. These options are not available in every Member State (e.g. Ireland,
Greece) which could disadvantage e-commerce market growth there. Identifying mechanisms to promote the emergence of similar intermediaries in all Member States would be a useful first step in supporting e-commerce markets that are relatively less developed.
A general need for harmonisation of consumer protection rights to facilitate cross-border e-commerce and approval for alternative dispute resolution in case of cross-border trade problems can be seen by the fact that all four countries and also the EU pursue activities in this field (national entities but also ECC-net). These activities are addressed by current discussions on the Consumers Rights Directive.
Regarding e-commerce trust marks it is evident that solutions already exist but not on the same level or with the same content / comprehensiveness of process (setup and governance) in all Member States. Exploring the inclusion of deliver aspects in trust marks or a specific trust mark for delivery suppliers could be considered. Many e-commerce trust marks are established within the EU. Therefore, the need is less for new trust marks but more for a central certification that provides governance standards and process / service consistency that trust marks would provide for e-retailers, delivery suppliers and customers. EMOTA is already implementing a certification for existing trust marks that must comply with the scheme criteria. Ecommerce Europe has announced to also develop one for its members. Success of such schemes could assist in driving the uptake of trust marks in those markets that do not have them.
A core issue identified in all countries are emerging innovative collection and delivery capabilities that offer shippers and receivers more convenience, lower pricing, better information support and greater certainty of on time delivery. This could be of strategic interest in servicing rural and remote areas as they would provide a better delivery coverage through basing in points of high foot fall in rural areas (petrol stations, schools, etc). Carriers are introducing same-day-delivery, weekend-delivery, delivery on demand, pre-delivery notification schemes etc. that go along with a growing start-up scene in the field of fulfilment and delivery solutions. Web-based virtual tools (e.g.
matching platforms) as well as physical delivery solutions (e.g. delivery by taxi or by registered cyclists, “bring along services”, etc.) can be found in almost every country while variety and dimensions of collection and delivery capabilities are depending on the maturity of the particular e-commerce market.