Estonian Human Development Report

Figure 5.2.3. Distribution of consumer dissatisfaction
(percentage of the entire sample)
17%
Source: Mina. Maailm. Meedia 2008
Country
9%
28%
% of population
that has
submitted at
least one official
complaint
to a provider of
goods or services
within the
past year
46%
None
Slight
Considerable
Strong
Table 5.2.2. Consumer protection and consumer
rights indicators for the EU in 2008
% of population
that
% of popu-
has exercised
their
rights arising
from
the warranties
of
goods
lation that
feels sufficiently
protected
by the regulations
as a consumer
% of population
that
feels that
sellers and
service
providers
generally
respect
their rights
Sweden 34 31 70 77
The Netherlands 25 17 74 77
Germany 24 20 61 72
United Kingdom 24 16 66 77
Finland 23 25 72 88
Denmark 22 25 73 57
Malta 17 17 52 58
EU27 16 16 51 59
Austria 16 20 61 66
Poland 16 14 45 49
Belgium 14 20 61 78
Slovakia 14 25 41 54
Ireland 13 10 56 58
Slovenia 13 18 45 61
Spain 11 14 53 63
France 11 15 40 61
Czech Republic 11 30 48 49
Hungary 11 12 50 57
Cyprus 10 16 52 53
Greece 9 8 30 39
Italy 9 12 39 36
Luxembourg 8 16 60 73
Estonia 8 15 50 68
Lithuania 6 12 25 35
Romania 6 11 - -
Portugal 5 9 35 39
Latvia 5 8 35 55
Bulgaria 4 7 - -
Source: Special Eurobarometer 298
income below 2500 kroons per household member) and had
reached 50% in the group with the highest income (monthly
income above 10,000 kroons per household member). Consumption-related
differences between ethnicities are considerably
smaller than those exhibited by different age groups,
and the spread of consumerism has been even more widespread
among the Russian-speaking population. In 2002
only 4% of Estonians and 5% of Russians provided answers
indicating a very high level of consumerism, while in 2008
the percentage of respondents characterized by a very high
level of consumerism reached 25% among Estonians and
30% among the Russian-speaking population.
The results of the 2008 survey allowed us to compile
another important indicator related to consumption atti-
tudes, namely the consumer dissatisfaction index. This
index characterizes people’s dissatisfaction with the selection
of food in our stores and markets, their families’
opportunities for healthy eating, the insufficient selection
in our clothing market as well as the fact that small shops
and marketplaces are increasingly being replaced by large
retail chains. An individual’s dissatisfaction with consumption
opportunities also belongs among the indirect indicators
of quality of life. The results are quite telling: 47% of the
respondents are satisfied with their consumption opportunities
and only 9% of the respondents report a strong sense
of dissatisfaction (Figure 5.2.3.). It is noteworthy that Estonian-speaking
consumers are somewhat more critical of
their consumption opportunities (43% expressed no dissatisfaction)
than non-Estonians (56% were not dissatisfied).
Another topic that has become increasingly important
in recent years is that of consumer education and competence.
Currently, Estonian consumers are still relatively passive
with regard to standing up for their rights. This conclusion
can be made both on the basis of our survey and on
the basis of the aforementioned Eurobarometer study (Consumer
Protection… 2008). This pertains to submitting official
complaints to the providers of goods and services when
problems occur, but also to using consumers’ rights arising
from warranties. According to the same Eurobarometer
study, 50% of the respondents in Estonia feel that they receive
enough protection as a consumer from existing regulations
– a level almost equal to the EU average (51%). Most Estonian
respondents (68%) also feel that sellers and service providers
generally respect their rights as consumers, thus displaying
a level of confidence twice as high as that of Lithuanian
respondents (36%). It is not clear whether Estonia’s relatively
high consumer satisfaction indicators point to the adequacy
of consumer protection and the regulations upholding the
interests of the consumer, or are a product of the passive and
undemanding nature of Estonian consumers. Though this
is a subject best explored by future studies using qualitative
analysis, Table 5.2.2. provides an overview of Estonian indicators
in comparison with those of other countries.
The matter of consumer education is relatively undeveloped
in Estonia today, both in terms of discussion and actual
activities. The successful education of Estonian consumers
remains an issue requiring the cooperation of several parties.
Although we can be satisfied with our results in comparison
with Lithuania’s indicators, Estonia still has a long way to go
if we want to achieve the level of consumer protection available,
for example, in Sweden or the Netherlands.
The environment and consumption
People’s relationship with nature can be divided into three
broad categories: relationship with nature and the realization
of interest in nature, environmentally friendly consumption,
and civic initiatives that benefit nature (collecting
signatures, organizing cooperative initiatives, etc.). The following
subsection concentrates on the two latter categories.
Accession to the European Union brought about a significant
change in the environmental awareness of Estonian
people as the example of the old member states and the effect
of several EU regulations challenged us to develop our consumption
behaviour along a more environment-conscious
path. Estonians who have often defined themselves as a nation
with a traditional relationship with nature had to act quickly
in order to adopt activities (separate collection of waste, eco-
| 106