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 NL 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

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring