Short Reads

Dutch Ministry issues Guidelines on Corporate Sustainability Initiatives and Competition Law

Dutch Ministry issues Guidelines on Corporate Sustainability Initiatives and Competition Law

Dutch Ministry issues Guidelines on Corporate Sustainability Initiatives and Competition Law

02.11.2016 EU law

On 5 October 2016, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs published revised policy guidelines and an explanatory note ("Guidelines") applicable to the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets' ("ACM")  assessment of sustainability initiatives between competitors. Examples include initiatives relating to ecological or environmental welfare, and agreements that may benefit public health, animal welfare, and/or fair trade.

The Guidelines introduce specific factors which the ACM must take into account when applying the national equivalent of article 101 (3) TFEU (the exemption provision) to agreements on sustainability, including:

  • Long-term benefits – for society as a whole – that may result from the agreement,
  • Long-term quantitative and qualitative benefits for consumers directly affected by the agreement,
  • First-mover disadvantages that would arise if the initiative was taken by a single firm, and
  • Whether parties to the agreement are able to compete effectively on parameters that remain unaffected by the agreement.

The new Guidelines were adopted to address (perceived) tension between the competition rules and sustainability initiatives. Businesses considered that the ACM's practical application of the competition rules would continue to hamper legitimate cooperation on sustainability. In 2015, for example, the ACM did not approve of a set of agreements aimed at enhancing the animal welfare conditions of chickens sold in Dutch supermarkets [see our February 2015 newsletter article].

Although the Guidelines do not alter the legal criteria enshrined in the exemption provision, guidance is provided on the types of objective benefits and supporting evidence the ACM must consider in its assessment if brought forward by businesses in support of the initiative. For example, when assessing whether objective efficiency gains offset initial consumer harm (e.g. in the form of higher prices or reduced choice) the ACM will have to assess the positive effects that are likely materialize in the long term, including the effects on future generations of consumers. In addition, the ACM will have to consider the effects of the agreement as a whole, as opposed to limiting its assessment to the part of the agreement that may result in negative effects on competition.

In practical terms, the Guidelines offer a number of methodologies than can be used by businesses to support the positive effects of sustainability initiatives. These include using so-called "shadow pricing" to determine the future costs for society that could be avoided by the sustainability initiative. Another suggested method includes quantifying the costs relating to damage sustained by failing to undertake the initiative.

Despite the additional assessment criteria imposed on the ACM by the Guidelines, businesses seeking to cooperate on sustainability will continue to bear the burden of proving that the envisaged agreement meets the exemption criteria. Overall the Guidelines provide useful information that can be used for this purpose, but the exercise will continue to depend of the facts of the case and the scope of the agreement. It remains to be seen whether the Guidelines will materially alter the ACM's critical track record or succeed in cutting red tape for businesses seeking to cooperate on sustainability.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. District Court of Rotterdam annuls 6 fines in the Rotterdam taxi operators cartel case
  2. District Court of The Hague deals with claim reduction by claimant and rules that claimant is responsible for preserving documents

Team

Related news

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

02.07.2018 EU law
General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

Short Reads - On 20 June 2018, the General Court rendered its judgment in two connected appeals submitted by České dráhy, the Czech Railways Operator, challenging two dawn raid decisions by the European Commission. Based on arguments concerning the scope of the investigation, the Court annulled in part the first dawn raid decision and fully upheld the second dawn raid decision.

Read more

29.06.2018 EU law
Un dossier de soumission imparfait peut-il être rectifié par le paiement d’une amende ?

Articles - Dans l’arrêt du 28 février 2018, la Cour de justice donne son avis sur la possibilité pour un soumissionnaire de rectifier, pendant la phase de sélection et moyennant paiement d’une amende, son dossier de soumission imparfait par un ajout et/ou commentaire. La Cour précise que cette mesure n’est, en principe, valable que si la nature de l’irrégularité constatée permet une rectification ultérieure et que le montant de l’amende est proportionnel à l’importance de l’irrégularité constatée. 

Read more

29.06.2018 EU law
Kan een gebrekkige inschrijving worden rechtgezet tegen betaling van een boete?

Articles - Het Hof van Justitie verduidelijkt in een arrest van 28 februari 2018 dat een regeling waarbij een inschrijver in de selectiefase verzocht wordt om tegen betaling van een boete diens gebrekkige inschrijving via een aanvulling en / of toelichting recht te zetten in beginsel aanvaardbaar is – voor zover (i) de aard van de vastgestelde onregelmatigheid een a posteriori rechtzetting toelaat en (ii) de omvang van de geldboete evenredig is met de zwaarwichtigheid van de vastgestelde onregelmatigheid.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring