The EU is often portrayed as bureaucratic and anti-business.
The first charge is perhaps well deserved, the second entirely
untrue. Benefiting from public disinterest and the opaque politics of Brussels, corporations exert a powerful and growing influence over European politics. Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), an Amsterdam-based group, has been investigating and documenting the inner workings of the EU and the ever increasing
corporate influence over its policy making process. Corporate Watch spoke to CEO co-founder Erik Wesselius about ten years of researching corporate lobbying in Brussels and at international institutions like the UN and the WTO. The idea for Corporate Europe Observatory was born in the Spring of 1997 in the run up to the EU summit at which the Amsterdam Treaty was to be agreed. 'We were involved in the organisation of the counter summit. we wanted to bring the issue of corporate power into the debate about a different EU.
'Our basic motivation was to oppose corporate influence on EU policies. We had seen the examples of the Trans European Networks and also the internal market and European Monetary Union. We had also stumbled upon the European Round Table of
Industrialists and decided we should do something about this. We wanted to make people realise that this is a problem for democracy' The sheer volume of material CEO has produced in ten years is astonishing and the depth of research is humbling. Since 1997 they have investigated a wide variety of topics - from the
Multilateral Agreement on Investments, to the privatisation of water companies worldwide, to the EU-US free trade negotiations. I asked Wesselius about the kind of techniques used by the corporations to gain influence in Brussels. These are multi-stranded strategies of influence. He pointed to their recent investigation of the car lobby and its campaign to evade CO2 emissions controls. In 1996, the EU had negotiated a voluntary agreement with the European car manufacturers for a reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars. They aimed to reduce average emissions from 186 g/km to 140 g/km by
2008. These reductions were to be achieved through technological development. By 2006 it had become apparent,
however, that the manufacturers were not keeping up their end of the bargain, with few manufacturers set to reach agreed interim targets. the German manufacturers were the worst offenders. In response EU Commissioners proposed a binding target of 120 g/km. The German auto industry responded immediately,
publicly declaring that they would have to shut many factories in Germany, affecting roughly 65,000 workers. They also claimed that the EU target was for a simple emissions limit of 120g/km per car, which is untrue: the target is for average emissions over the different models in a manufacturers range. This falsehood was however picked up by the German press and relayed as truth. Meanwhile the European Car Manufacturers Association (ACEA) apologised and released a position paper blaming their
failure to live up to their commitment on external factors, highlighting part of their 1998 agreement with the Commission
which said that 'external factors beyond ACEA's control may influence the outcome'. ACEA went on to blame poor recycling
regulation, 'weak demand for energy efficiency' and other things. The car companies proposed an integrated approach in which the 'combined efforts of many parties and demand-related measures are essential instead' - this problem would be re-cast as a vague social responsibility, rather than a demand of the car industry itself. The German manufacturers played up the supposed threat to their factories in Germany and recruited many German politicians to their cause, including Chancellor, Angela Merkel to lobby for a relaxation of the proposals. Meanwhile a small army of lobbyists in Brussels went to work. The Commission has now decided to water down its proposals, pressing for a 130g/km target instead. CEO has researched and documented hundreds of such cases, revealing the real decision-making processes in Brussels.
For us here in the UK, their work deserves far more attention. The issues they research continue to become yet more urgent, as the EU extends its influence over the lives of ordinary Europeans, whilst the corporations continue to extend their
influence over the EU process. CEO continues to campaign for proper transparency in European lobbying. Unlike the US
and many other countries, there is no register of Brussels lobbyists, or of their activities. CEO recently claimed a major victory. The special adviser to EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, was at the same
time running a lobbying company representing major energy companies - in particular nuclear power companies. CEO wrote
open letters to Linkohr, Piebalgs and the Commission Vice-President, Siim Kallas, pointing out the clear conflict of interests. The lobbyist in question, Rolf Linkohr, was subsequently sacked as the Commissioner's special adviser; a move which may signal a new commitment to transparency in the Commission
The first charge is perhaps well deserved, the second entirely
untrue. Benefiting from public disinterest and the opaque politics of Brussels, corporations exert a powerful and growing influence over European politics. Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), an Amsterdam-based group, has been investigating and documenting the inner workings of the EU and the ever increasing
corporate influence over its policy making process. Corporate Watch spoke to CEO co-founder Erik Wesselius about ten years of researching corporate lobbying in Brussels and at international institutions like the UN and the WTO. The idea for Corporate Europe Observatory was born in the Spring of 1997 in the run up to the EU summit at which the Amsterdam Treaty was to be agreed. 'We were involved in the organisation of the counter summit. we wanted to bring the issue of corporate power into the debate about a different EU.
'Our basic motivation was to oppose corporate influence on EU policies. We had seen the examples of the Trans European Networks and also the internal market and European Monetary Union. We had also stumbled upon the European Round Table of
Industrialists and decided we should do something about this. We wanted to make people realise that this is a problem for democracy' The sheer volume of material CEO has produced in ten years is astonishing and the depth of research is humbling. Since 1997 they have investigated a wide variety of topics - from the
Multilateral Agreement on Investments, to the privatisation of water companies worldwide, to the EU-US free trade negotiations. I asked Wesselius about the kind of techniques used by the corporations to gain influence in Brussels. These are multi-stranded strategies of influence. He pointed to their recent investigation of the car lobby and its campaign to evade CO2 emissions controls. In 1996, the EU had negotiated a voluntary agreement with the European car manufacturers for a reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars. They aimed to reduce average emissions from 186 g/km to 140 g/km by
2008. These reductions were to be achieved through technological development. By 2006 it had become apparent,
however, that the manufacturers were not keeping up their end of the bargain, with few manufacturers set to reach agreed interim targets. the German manufacturers were the worst offenders. In response EU Commissioners proposed a binding target of 120 g/km. The German auto industry responded immediately,
publicly declaring that they would have to shut many factories in Germany, affecting roughly 65,000 workers. They also claimed that the EU target was for a simple emissions limit of 120g/km per car, which is untrue: the target is for average emissions over the different models in a manufacturers range. This falsehood was however picked up by the German press and relayed as truth. Meanwhile the European Car Manufacturers Association (ACEA) apologised and released a position paper blaming their
failure to live up to their commitment on external factors, highlighting part of their 1998 agreement with the Commission
which said that 'external factors beyond ACEA's control may influence the outcome'. ACEA went on to blame poor recycling
regulation, 'weak demand for energy efficiency' and other things. The car companies proposed an integrated approach in which the 'combined efforts of many parties and demand-related measures are essential instead' - this problem would be re-cast as a vague social responsibility, rather than a demand of the car industry itself. The German manufacturers played up the supposed threat to their factories in Germany and recruited many German politicians to their cause, including Chancellor, Angela Merkel to lobby for a relaxation of the proposals. Meanwhile a small army of lobbyists in Brussels went to work. The Commission has now decided to water down its proposals, pressing for a 130g/km target instead. CEO has researched and documented hundreds of such cases, revealing the real decision-making processes in Brussels.
For us here in the UK, their work deserves far more attention. The issues they research continue to become yet more urgent, as the EU extends its influence over the lives of ordinary Europeans, whilst the corporations continue to extend their
influence over the EU process. CEO continues to campaign for proper transparency in European lobbying. Unlike the US
and many other countries, there is no register of Brussels lobbyists, or of their activities. CEO recently claimed a major victory. The special adviser to EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, was at the same
time running a lobbying company representing major energy companies - in particular nuclear power companies. CEO wrote
open letters to Linkohr, Piebalgs and the Commission Vice-President, Siim Kallas, pointing out the clear conflict of interests. The lobbyist in question, Rolf Linkohr, was subsequently sacked as the Commissioner's special adviser; a move which may signal a new commitment to transparency in the Commission
Download