WRITTEN QUESTION E-3161/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: International companies such as McDonald's which can ignore the European social model, national rules and the green paper on social responsibility

1. Is the Commission aware that the American fast-food chain McDonald's, whose business has grown spectacularly in Europe and which has recruited many young employees, is threatening branches in Germany with closure if the employees set up a works council, and that in the United Kingdom it does not permit the recruitment or promotion of trade union members, does not conclude any collective agreements on terms of employment, and pays lower than standard wage rates?

2. Is the Commission aware that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the unions affiliated to it believe that in many cases these problems exceed the capacity of the individual EU Member States to intervene effectively and that it is therefore highly desirable that action should now be taken at European level against these practices which conflict with what is generally accepted as the European social model?

3. Will the Commission, while acknowledging the powers of national authorities and the application of national legislation, take the initiative to coordinate at European level measures to reprimand this large business and any other international violators of national rules?

4. What will the Commission do to combat the abuse of internal borders and the undermining of the relationship between employers and employees which is customary in Europe and to eliminate the competitive advantages which these abuses confer in comparison with businesses which comply with the law and with collective agreements on terms of employment?

5. In the light of the green paper on Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility(1), what possible penalties could be imposed on businesses which permanently seek to disregard recommendations relating to the recruitment and retention of skilled workers, lifelong learning, improving the position of employees, better information throughout the company, a better balance between work, family life and leisure, greater work force diversity, equal pay and career prospects for women, profit-sharing and share ownership schemes, and concern for employability and job security?

Source: Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 8 October 2002.

(1) COM(2001) 366 final of 18 July 2001.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2003)

The Honourable Member's allegations about the conduct of the company in question with regard to pay, the right of association and freedom of collective bargaining do not come within the scope of any Community legislation. Indeed, the EC Treaty rules out any action by the Community to establish minimum requirements in these areas on the basis of Article 137 (see Article 137(6) of the EC Treaty). With this in mind, and in the absence of any link between the facts described and Community law, the Commission does not have the authority to intervene.

At all events, it is always the responsibility of the national authorities to investigate such behaviour, if it emerges that there has been a violation of one or more Community directives laying down minimum requirements in the field of industrial relations, and to enforce the rights in question where necessary.

The strategy to promote Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Union, which was proposed by the Commission in its Green Paper and in the subsequent Communication(1), does not make provision for sanctions mechanisms, as it defines CSR as company behaviour which goes beyond legal requirements. However, the Commission has pointed out that the legal requirements laid down in legislation must be respected and enforced.

(1) COM(2002) 347 final.