Although all countries have adopted some policy instruments to promote eAccessibility in public procurement of goods and services, some differences come up in the comparison between categories. While the greater efforts among the EU countries are on training and guidance in public procurement and strength of public procurement law, the accessibility requirements in project selection process are lower. The United Kingdom scores the highest, followed by USA and Australia, although it is important to point out that the non-EU countries do not score in the last two indicators because they are related specifically to EU countries.
Figure . Status of public procurement accessibility policy in EU and non-EU countries
Figure . Status of public procurement accessibility policy, by country
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Scoring for laws and regulations to ensure accessibility to goods and services purchased by public authorities is based on the following question:
To what extent are provisions in place to ensure accessibility to goods and services which directly or indirectly cover technology purchased by public authorities?
The possible answers to this question were:
No procurement laws/regulations referring to accessibility; no other relevant activities addressing accessibility in mainstream public procurement accessibility.
Accessibility is referenced in the transposition of the revised EU Directives, but seems considerable weaker than intended; no other activities.
Accessibility is referenced in the transposition of the revised EU Directives, but seems a bit weaker than intended, other initiatives such as toolkits are to be found, but not linked to this.
Specific reference to/encouragement of accessibility in laws/regulations, but not (yet) being followed-up.
Specific reference to/encouragement of accessibility in laws, and some relevant (follow-up) activity
Specific reference to /requirement of accessibility in laws, and a lot of relevant (follow-up) activity.
Relatively many countries appear to have adopted some policy instruments. This is probably related to the adoption of the EU directives on public procurement (Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC).
According to these directives, contracting authorities should, whenever possible, lay down technical specifications to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users. In the Europe Union, Italy scores the highest, while the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and UK score the same as the non-EU countries (Australia, Canada and USA). France and the Netherlands appear not to have adopted any policy instruments in this regard.
Scoring for strength of public procurement law to ensure accessibility to goods and services is based on the following question:
Overall, which implications (if any) do existing public procurement law and regulations have for the inclusion of eAccessibility requirements in public procurement of ICT in your country? (No implication / Inclusion of eAccessibility in ICT procurement is allowed, but not specifically encouraged / Inclusion of eAccessibility in ICT procurement is encouraged, but not mandatory / It is mandatory to include eAccessibility in some ICT procurements by public bodies / It is mandatory to include eAccessibility in all ICT procurement by public bodies).
The scoring for strength of public procurement law is in line with what we would have expected from the existing literature on social regulations in public procurement. The English-speaking countries, USA, Australia and United Kingdom, scored the highest, together with Italy.
Scoring for training and guidance on eAccessibility in public procurement is based on the following three questions:
Is there a central source of expertise that can be consulted by parties responsible for public procurement? (No / yes).
Are guidelines on eAccessibility available to parties responsible for public procurement? (No / yes).
Is training on eAccessibility available to parties responsible for public procurement? (No / yes).
EU countries score higher on training and guidance than on legal regulations in public procurement. Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands and United Kingdom scored the highest.
For the period 2007-2013, Council Regulation 1083/2006 on the structural funds, Article 16, requires Member States and the European Commission to take appropriate steps to prevent any discrimination based on inter alia disability during the various stages of implementation of the Funds and, in particular, in access to them. Scoring for eAccessibility requirements in public procurement of ICTs that utilise EU Structural Funds is based on the following question:
Has your country any procedures in place (or planned to be put in place) that require / encourage inclusion of eAccessibility requirements in public procurement of ICTs that utilise EU Structural Funds? (No / Planned / Already in place)
Hungary, Portugal, Spain and the UK already have procedures in place to encourage inclusion of eAccessibility requirements in public procurement of ICTs using EU Structural Funds. Greece Italy and Sweden have planned to implement such procedures, while Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands appear not to have applied any such accessibility requirements to ICT. The question was not relevant for non-EU countries.
Have national authorities in your country taken any of the following steps to integrate accessibility requirements into the project selection process? (Nothing specific / Projects targeting users with specific needs have certain advantage when a decision on support is taken e.g. may get a higher score / All projects supported by public funding have to comply with accessibility requirements / All projects have to comply with accessibility requirements).
What tools are used to integrate accessibility requirements into the project selection process? (Nothing specific / Project applicants must explain the contribution of their projects regarding equal opportunities / Guidelines, advice, consultation or training on cross-cutting issues are available to project applicants / Guidelines, advice, consultation or training on cross-cutting issues are available to project evaluators/appraisers; and public agencies in charge of the selection process).
The United Kingdom scored the highest on accessibility requirements in project selection process. Hungary and Spain appear to have applied some eAccessibility requirements. The question was not relevant for non-EU countries.
Table . Status of public procurement accessibility policy in EU and non-EU countries
Public procurements linked to the EU Structural funds
45
45
17
17
17
17
50
83
17
50
83
83
50
17
83
Accessibility requirements in project selection process
35
35
38
13
38
13
38
63
13
13
38
50
38
13
88
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Non-discrimination
Policies of non-discrimination in access to technology and, in particular, those aimed at ensuring equal access to technology goods and services for the public, play an important role in promoting accessibility. These policies include, inter alia, the duty of suppliers and providers to make reasonable accommodation to ensure accessibility of technologies and incentives to cover the extra cost of such accommodation.
Figure . Status of non-discrimination on eAccessibility policy in EU and non-EU countries
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Figure . Status of non-discrimination on eAccessibility policy, by country
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Spain and United Kingdom scored the highest, followed by the USA and Canada. While the English-speaking countries (UK, USA, Canada) have a longer tradition for this kind of policy approach, Spain, Italy Portugal, Sweden and Norway have reformed their non-discrimination policy over the last few years.
Scoring for non-discrimination legislation on eAccessibility is based on the following question:
Does national legislation comprise non-discrimination provisions covering (directly or indirectly) technologies for persons with specific needs? (Not covered / Could be inferred but no direct reference, public sector only / Could be inferred but no direct reference, both public and private sector / Clear reference or relevance, public sector only / Clear reference or relevance, both public and private sector).
Italy, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Canada, Norway and USA have a clear references, both public and private, for non-discrimination provisions covering (directly or indirectly) technologies for persons with specific needs. France, Germany, Greece, Australia and Hungary have those direct references but only for the public sector.
Scoring for legislation to ensure accessibility to technology goods and services is based on the following five questions:
Does national legislation make references to or cover (directly or indirectly) accessibility of technology goods and services? (None / / Could be inferred but no direct reference, public sector only / Could be inferred but no direct reference, both public and private sector / Clear reference or relevance, public sector only / Clear reference or relevance, both public and private sector).
Does national legislation make reference to or cover (directly or indirectly) a positive duty element (requirement for systemic action, anticipatory duty to accommodation) in relation to accessibility of technology? (None / Apparently some positive duty element / Clear positive duty element of some sort).
Are provisions to ensure anticipatory duty to accommodation for providers of goods and services in private sector in place, covering (directly or indirectly) accessibility of technology? (Nothing specific / Some, but not well developed / Good).
Are grants, public funds or tax incentives for providers of goods and services to cover extra costs related to accommodation or anticipatory accommodation in place? (Nothing specific / Some, but not well developed / Good).
Are any negative incentives, e.g. financial sanctions (compulsory fines, day fines, damage payment, withdrawal of public financial support, etc) imposed on providers of goods and services who do not ensure reasonable accommodation, covering (directly or indirectly) accessibility of technology? (Nothing specific / Some, but not well developed / Good).
Spain and United Kingdom scored the highest on legislation to ensure accessibility to technology goods and services, followed by Portugal.
On the other hand, Denmark and the Netherlands appear to be the only countries without specific legislation to ensure accessibility to technology goods and services.
Table . Status of non-discrimination on eAccessibility policy
TOTAL
EU COUNTRIES
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
NON-EU COUNTRIES
Australia
Canada
Norway
USA
Total Non-Discrimination on eAccessibility
52
50
36
6
43
50
48
50
23
60
60
94
65
16
94
61
43
70
60
70
Non-discrimination legislation on eAccessibility
68
62
50
10
70
70
70
70
30
90
50
90
90
30
90
85
70
90
90
90
Access to goods and services
37
37
21
2
17
31
26
31
17
31
69
98
40
2
98
37
17
50
31
50
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Employment
Several countries score high on adoption of policy instruments to ensure eAccessibility in employment: The Netherlands, United Kingdom and USA scored the highest, followed by France, Germany, Spain and Sweden. The relatively high scores are probably related to the transposition of the employment framework directive (EC/78/2000) in the EU countries. The scoring of the EU countries should be compared to the employment policy reports of the ANED expert network. For several of the countries, the national experts in ANED appear to downplay the role of non-discrimination regulations in employment and hence reasonable accommodation in the workplace.
Figure . Status of eAccessibility in employment policy in EU and non-EU countries
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Figure . Status of eAccessibility in employment policy, by country
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Assessment of the status of eAccessibility policy on employment is based on the analysis of the implementation of reasonable adjustments in employment to cover, directly or indirectly, the accessibility of technology. The indicator used (implementation of reasonable accommodation in employment) has been scored from the following five questions:
Are provisions in place to ensure a duty to reasonable accommodation for employers, covering (directly or indirectly) accessibility of technology? (No reasonable accommodation provision / Unclear or weak accommodation provisions / Standard reasonable accommodation provisions (as in the EU directive 2000/78/EC) / Good (implicit) coverage of eAccessibility issues / Explicit coverage of eAccessibility issues).
Are provisions in place to ensure positive (anticipatory) duty to accommodation for employers? (No provisions / Apparently some relevance / Yes, clear requirement).
Are provisions in place to ensure support mechanisms for redress or damage payment for lack of accessibility in employment, covering (directly or indirectly
accessibility of technology? (No provisions / Some, but not well developed / Yes, good provisions).
Are grants, public funds, or tax incentives for employers to cover extra costs related to accommodation or anticipatory adjustments in place, covering (directly or indirectly) accessibility of technology? (No provisions / Some, but not well developed / Yes, good provisions).
Are any negative incentives, e.g. financial sanctions (compulsory fines, day fines, damage payment, withdrawal of public financial support, etc) imposed on employers who do not ensure accommodation or anticipatory accommodation in the work place, covering (directly or indirectly) accessibility of technology? (No provisions / Some, but not well developed / Yes, good provisions.
Table . Status of eAccessibility in employment policy
This section focuses on the practices of four sets of actors: public agencies, ombudsman offices/rights commissioners, judicial authorities and disabled people’s organisations (DPOs). The questions provide data to analyse the capacity of various types of actors to monitor and enforce the law and policy instruments.
The data demonstrate large variations between EU countries in terms of enforcement of the official eAccessibility policy. Spain scores the highest, followed by Portugal, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and Hungary. Some of the results seem counter-intuitive at first glance. The results should be interpreted in light of the questions posed in the survey.
Figure . Enforcement of public policy in EU and non-EU countries
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Figure . Enforcement of public policy, by country
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Scoring for capacity to coordinate and enforce regulations, laws and policies on eAccessibility by public administration is based on the following three questions:
Are there national public agencies coordinating and supporting the enforcement of current regulations, laws and policies on eAccessibility? (No national agency with a particular responsibility / Responsibility is divided between different agencies / One agency has a particular responsibility)
Are national public agencies entitled to impose sanctions (penalties) on public enterprises to enforce accessibility requirements? (No provisions / Some, but not well developed / Narrow scope / Strong provisions and broad scope)
Are national public agencies entitled to impose sanctions (penalties) on private enterprises to enforce accessibility requirements? (No provisions / Some, but not well developed / Narrow scope / Strong provisions and broad scope).
Spain and United Kingdom scored the highest on capacity to coordinate and enforce regulations, laws and policies on eAccessibility by public administration, followed by Czech Republic, Portugal and Hungary.
Scoring for monitoring of public eAccessibility policy is based on the following two questions:
Does the country regularly monitor for compliance with the appropriate accessibility (at least once a year) and report for all public facilities and services? (No monitoring / Some, but unsystematic or narrow scope / Systematic and broad scope).
Does the country regularly monitor for compliance with the appropriate accessibility (at least once a year) and report for all private facilities and services? (No monitoring / Some, but unsystematic or narrow scope / Systematic and broad scope).
Portugal is the only country that regularly monitors for compliance with the appropriate accessibility and reports for both public and private facilities and services with a systematic and broad scope. Other countries appear only to monitor compliance in the public sector or have less systematic or narrower scope in monitoring.
Scoring for deliberation of public policy - cooperation with stakeholders is based on the following four questions:
Is there a systematic review mechanism (regular report of progress etc.) by the country of the existing legislation and/or policies concerning eAccessibility? (No review mechanism / Some, but unsystematic or narrow scope / Systematic and broad scope).
Is there a systematic mechanism to involve disabled people’s organisations working in the field of eAccessibility to the drafting, designing, implementation and evaluation of laws and policies? (No review mechanism / Some, but unsystematic or narrow scope / Systematic and broad scope).
Is there a systematic mechanism to involve business in the field of eAccessibility to the drafting, designing, implementation and evaluation of laws and policies? (No review mechanism / Some, but unsystematic or narrow scope / Systematic and broad scope).
Is there a national mechanism (e.g. ad-hoc websites, email address, telephone number) where citizens can report experiencing accessibility problems with public e-services? (No mechanism / Only for one or two technology or policy domains / Broad coverage).
Germany, Ireland, Spain and United Kingdom scored the highest on systematic review mechanisms to ensure that law and policies are relevant, sufficient to achieve policy objectives and in compliance with European and international law. Other countries, such as Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Canada, Norway and USA, appear to have more modest review mechanisms, while Greece and Australia hardly show any advances in this regard.
Scoring for accessibility awareness raising programmes is based on the following two questions:
Have there been any nationwide conferences and other awareness raising/information programmes, projects, in the field of eAccessibility in the year 2009? (No / Targeting one technology domains or limited groups of stakeholders / Covering several technology domains or broad groups)
Do country laws or policies require ICT accessibility training for public employees? (No / Some, but not well developed or narrowly defined / Programmes cover several groups of public employees and technology domains).
Several other countries show some activity in raising awareness on eAccessibility. Spain and Portugal scored the highest on prevalence of accessibility awareness raising programmes, followed by Germany, United Kingdom and USA.
Scoring for prevalence of administrative and court decisions about eAccessibility is based on the following four questions:
Has public administration in the country issued any decisions following complaints from individuals or organisations about lack of eAccessibility (e.g. ordered corrections or suspensions or imposed financial sanctions on enterprises in violation of existing eAccessibility provisions)? (No decision / some, but rare or weak / frequent or strong decision).
Has the parliamentary or civil ombudsman office investigated any cases related to lack of eAccessibility? (No cases or no office / Cases about accessibility for persons with specific needs but not eAccessibility as such / Yes, cases about eAccessibility have been addressed).
Has the office of the rights commissioner or ombudsman investigated any cases of alleged discrimination against persons with disabilities? (No cases or no office / Cases about accessibility for persons with specific needs but not eAccessibility as such / Yes, cases about eAccessibility have been addressed).
Have there been any court rulings relevant for eAccessibility in the country? (No cases / Cases about accessibility for persons with specific needs but not eAccessibility as such / Yes, cases about eAccessibility have been addressed).
Australia scored the highest on administrative decisions and court rulings on complaints about insufficient eAccessibility, followed by Czech Republic, Hungary, Spain, Sweden and Canada. USA scores surprisingly low given what is known about litigation and out-of-court settlements in the US.
Table . Enforcement of public policy
TOTAL
EU COUNTRIES
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
NON-EU COUNTRIES
Australia
Canada
Norway
USA
Total enforcement of public policy
47
47
62
30
17
57
12
60
43
40
73
80
48
32
63
48
39
51
44
56
Coordination and enforcement of public eAccessibility policy
47
48
64
36
7
50
7
64
36
36
64
93
50
21
93
46
36
50
50
50
Monitoring of public eAccessibility policy
38
39
50
50
10
10
10
50
50
50
90
50
30
10
50
35
30
10
50
50
Deliberation of public policy
62
64
72
39
50
94
6
61
94
50
83
94
39
50
94
58
17
72
72
72
Accessibility awareness raising programs
46
47
50
10
10
70
10
50
30
50
90
90
50
30
70
45
30
50
30
70
Administrative and court decisions about eAccessibility
43
40
72
17
6
61
28
72
6
17
39
72
72
50
6
53
83
72
17
39
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
Overall status of eAccessibility policy
A synthetic eAccessibility policy index has been constructed from the results obtained in each of the domains studied.
The domains in which there is a greater degree of implementation of eAccessibility policy in EU countries are those related to assistive technology, provision of reasonable accommodation in employment, enforcement of public policy, accessibility to Internet, incorporation of eAccessibility criteria in public procurement and ensuring non-discrimination in access to technology. Other aspects such as computer accessibility, digital homes, urban and educational environment, and television accessibility are less developed.
Spain, USA, UK, Portugal and Canada have the highest scores. At the other end of the scale are Italy, Greece and Ireland, with Ireland scoring surprisingly low.
Figure . Status of eAccessibility policy in EU and non EU countries
