Blog Post

European e-commerce needs better visibility into cross-border delivery prices

Consumers, retail shippers, and European and national regulatory authorities could benefit from enhanced visibility into the price of shipping goods across borders in Europe.

By: , and Date: May 25, 2016 Topic: Digital economy and innovation

The European Commission released a multi-faceted plan to boost e-commerce in Europe on 25 May. The plan includes provisions to increase the transparency of prices for cross-border parcel delivery, with an eye to lowering prices as a means of increasing European e-commerce.

What exactly is meant by transparency? Who needs visibility into what, and why?

Based on a preliminary reading, the Regulation on e-commerce that the Commission has just proposed seems to be very much in line with the general principles that we sketch out here.

High cross-border parcel delivery prices as an impediment to cross-border e-commerce

Almost 4 billion parcels are ordered online and delivered every year in the EU. The potential for e-commerce is however far greater – while 44% of consumers buy online in their own country, far fewer (15%) order online from another country. One of the biggest obstacles is the high cost of cross-border delivery. EU consumers could save over €11 billion each year if they chose from the full range of goods and services available when shopping online. Cheaper and more transparent pricing could also encourage more retailers to sell online.

The Commission announced in its Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy that it will work on improving regulatory oversight in the parcel sector and will look into the issue of price transparency, including the prices for basic delivery of parcels for small retail shippers.[1] Express and courier shipments are generally felt not to be an issue, because many firms in this space are vertically integrated and compete with one another. The prices that small shippers pay for basic delivery are widely felt to be the area where concern is warranted.

Vice President Andrus Ansip (who is in charge of the Digital Single Market) said in his statement at the May 2016 Bruegel event on cross-border parcel delivery and e-commerce: “If Europe is to have a high functioning DSM, it must also have affordable and high-quality cross-border parcel delivery services. We want to make parcel delivery cheaper, more efficient and transparent – and hopefully reliable too, with more choice for consumers.”

As we explain in our companion paper, “E-Commerce in Europe: Parcel Delivery Prices in a Digital Single Market”, small retail shippers have consistently indicated that high cross-border parcel delivery prices are a serious barrier to their ability to conduct online business in other EU Member States. Small shippers appear to have few alternatives to shipment by the national postal operators, and often pay them the full published price. There are legitimate reasons for cross-border shipment to cost more than domestic, but actual published prices seem to be far higher in many Member States than can be explained solely on the basis of known differences in costs.

Shining a light into the gloom

During his talk, Vice President Ansip called for transparency as regards retail prices of national postal operators for 15 different categories (standard, registered and track and trace postal services of different weight categories) of letter and parcel delivery. This is entirely appropriate, in our view, but it again begs the question: What exactly is meant by transparency?

As we have explained in our companion paper, hardly any publicly available data exists today on:

  • actual payments between EU national postal operators as recompense for parcel delivery in another member state – the nominal global caps set by the Universal Postal Union (UPU) are known, but not the actual payments;
  • parcel delivery volumes between the member states; and
  • the fraction of shipments that benefit from negotiated discounts, nor the degree to which prices are discounted.

It is difficult to see how sound policy can be crafted and maintained in the absence of even the most basic understanding of the economics of the sector. These gaps have been long-standing – they were already flagged in the postal Green Paper of 1991, which led to liberalisation of the sector. They are not likely to correct themselves spontaneously. Since the information gaps relate to cross-border issues, they cannot be properly addressed solely by actions at member state level (which likely would be mutually inconsistent in any case in the absence of European coordination). The need for action at European level therefore seems clear.

In the public discussion, transparency however often blurs together two very different dimensions:

  • visibility and simplicity of retail prices offered to consumers (addressed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 4 of the Regulation); versus
  • visibility by European and national postal regulatory authorities into the economics of the sector (addressed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 4 of the Regulation).

What consumers and small retail shippers need is clarity and simplicity in pricing. This could arguably include standard published discounts for avoided costs where the shipper takes on burdens that would otherwise fall to the national postal operator, such as pre-sorting and delivery to the destination post office.

Not all information can or should be made public. For instance, we do not suggest that the contracts and discounts negotiated with large volume shippers be made public. The national postal operators are businesses that face either competition, or at least the threat of competitive entry. These contracts are legitimate proprietary business information, the public disclosure of which might well reduce economic efficiency in many ways.

Regulators at European and member state level need greater visibility into cross-border parcel economics in order to properly do their respective jobs. As we have explained in our companion paper, an understanding of the payment flows among the national postal operators, the “spreads” between those payments and the nominal published prices in the member states, the degree to which prices paid by medium to large shippers differ from those paid by consumers and small shippers, and the volumes of shipments of various types between the member states are essential. In general, aggregated data could be sufficient for these purposes.

How to provide regulatory authorities with the detailed information they need, without opening business-sensitive information up to the public, poses issues of institutional design; however, these challenges can be addressed. Similar problems have already been solved in other sectors (see BEREC 2016).


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Insights for successful enforcement of Europe’s Digital Markets Act

The European Commission will enforce digital competition rules against big tech; internally, it should ensure a dedicated process and teams; externally, it should ensure cooperation with other jurisdictions and coherence with other digital policies.

By: Christophe Carugati and Catarina Martins Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: May 11, 2022
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Who will enforce the Digital Markets Act?

While the Digital Markets Act entered its first trilogue, what will be the enforcement role of the Commission and the Member States?

Speakers: Christophe Carugati, Cani Fernández, Assimakis Komninos and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Digital economy and innovation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 22, 2022
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The dark side of artificial intelligence: manipulation of human behaviour

Transparency over systems and algorithms, rules and public awareness are needed to address potential danger of manipulation by artificial intelligence.

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: February 2, 2022
Read article

Blog Post

Inclusive growth

Which platforms will be caught by the Digital Markets Act? The ‘gatekeeper’ dilemma

The scope of the Digital Markets Act has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in the regulatory discussion. Here, we assess which companies could potentially be considered ‘gatekeepers’.

By: Mario Mariniello and Catarina Martins Topic: Digital economy and innovation, Inclusive growth Date: December 14, 2021
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Regulating big tech: the Digital Markets Act

The European Union’s proposed Digital Markets Act will attempt to control online gatekeepers by subjecting them to a wider range of upfront constraints.

By: Julia Anderson and Mario Mariniello Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: February 16, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author


Regulation in the era of matchmaking economics

New approaches and new tools are needed to prevent excessive concentration of economic power in the hands of a few matchmaking digital platforms that form multi-sided markets. Regulation in this area is only just emerging.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: January 5, 2021
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

An alternative mobile operating environment?

Walking the wire: we discuss risks and benefits involved for the EU should it embark on developing a new smartphone operating system.

Speakers: Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, J. Scott Marcus, Renato Nazzini, Peter Stuckmann and Andreas Zimmer Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: April 29, 2020
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

In an era of digitalisation, the Single Market needs a software update

This blog post is part of a series following the 2019 Bruegel annual meetings, which brought together nearly 1,000 participants for two days of policy debate and discussion. For more from the sessions, check out our special-edition podcasts and live audio and video recordings of the event’s public panels.

By: Reinhilde Veugelers and Bruegel Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: September 19, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author



Backstage at BAM19: How can Europe's economy thrive in the digital age?

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Giuseppe Porcaro talks with session chair Reinhilde Veugelers on Europe's economy in the digital age.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: September 4, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic


Digitalisation and European welfare states

EU policymakers must find answers to pressing questions: if technology has a negative impact on labour income, how will the welfare state be funded? How can workers’ welfare rights be adequately secured? A team of Bruegel scholars, with the support of the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, has taken on these questions.

By: Georgios Petropoulos, J. Scott Marcus, Nicolas Moës and Enrico Bergamini Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: July 9, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author



Deep Focus: Developing Europe's digital single market

Bruegel senior fellow J. Scott Marcus joins Sean Gibson for this episode of Deep Focus on the 'The Sound of Economics', elaborating on a Bruegel study for the European Parliament into the progress made with the Commission's Digital Single Market Strategy since 2015.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: February 12, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Contribution to Growth: The European Digital Single Market

Numerous legislative measures have been initiated or enacted in support of the overall achievement of a Digital Single Market (DSM). This in-depth analysis provides a brief stock-taking of what has been achieved in economic terms, of what remains to be done, and of candidate initiatives for the next legislative term.

By: J. Scott Marcus, Georgios Petropoulos and Timothy Yeung Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: February 12, 2019
Load more posts