WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/00 by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. New OECD code of conduct.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Mexico, OECD, code of conduct, competition, confidentiality, consumer protection, environmental protection, multinational enterprise, social policy, trade agreement

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/139

In its Communication of 30 April 1997 (4),
the Commission undertook to apply the principles of
excellence,
independence and transparency in delivering scientific opinions. The assessment made by
SCAN is underpinned by the competence and expertise of the members of the Committee and the ad hoc
working parties which examine the dossiers. The scientific committees are fully aware of the need to
ensure that the opinions they deliver are consistent. For this reason, the SCAN working parties on
(cid:145)Enzymes(cid:146) and (cid:145)Micro-organisms(cid:146) are responsible for all assessments of dossiers on enzyme and micro-
organism-based additives respectively.

3.
SCAN is responsible for delivering independent scientific opinions in response to questions from the
Commission. The group of Member State experts is a legislative working party set up by the Standing
Group on Feedingstuffs which considers all the aspects of a dossier, including those which SCAN is not
asked to examine (such as the effectiveness of a product for which an application for provisional
Community authorisation has to be made).

The minutes of the plenary meetings of the scientific committees are adopted at their plenary

4.
meetings and are published on the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/index_en.html.

They do not include individual comments made by the committee members. However, minority opinions
are mentioned when the opinions are published.

The minutes of meetings and the notes of the working parties are not published because they constitute
preparatory deliberations which are part of the committees(cid:146) internal processes. The Commission acts as a
secretariat for the committees.

Finally, in the case of enzymes and micro-organisms, communications between the Commission and the
applicant for an authorisation are conducted via the Member State selected by the applicant to act as a
rapporteur in compliance with the procedure under Directive 70/524/EEC.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.
(2) Council Directive 87/153/EEC of 16 February 1987 fixing guidelines for the assessment of additives in animal

nutrition (OJ L 64, 7.3.1987).

(3) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
(4) COM(97) 183 final.

(2001/C 113 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/00

by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: New OECD code of conduct

In its June 2000 ministerial meeting the OECD adopted a code of conduct on social and ecological aspects
for multinationals. This exercise echoes an agreement of 1976 which did not contain sanctions and was
therefore never of any help and remained totally forgotten. The new code, however, does not contains
sanctions either.

Does the Commission think the new code will be respected more than the former one?

On what basis, given that the new code contains no sanctions?

Does the Commission intend to include a reference to this code in all future trade agreements with third
countries?

What does the Commission think about Mexico(cid:146)s behaviour in the negotiations? (Mexico was strongly
opposed to the code, but had to join finally because of the consensus principle). Does this not throw a
very negative light on future cooperation with Mexico? Does the Commission intend to raise the question
in the next EU-Mexico Joint Council and could it consider proposing an amendment concerning the
inclusion of a reference to the OECD code of conduct in the EU-Mexico agreement at the next possible
opportunity?

C 113 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

The Ministers of the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) countries, as well as
those of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the Slovak Republic, adopted on 27th June 2000 the revised
guidelines for multinational enterprises. They represent a set of recommendations addressed jointly by
OECD governments to multinational enterprises (MNEs).

The revised guidelines themselves are non-binding principles and standards of corporate behaviour that
OECD governments exhort multinational enterprises to observe when operating in and from their territory
-that is, operating in non-OECD countries too. Compared to the guidelines adopted in 1976, this text has
been substantially updated and expanded, not only on social and ecological aspects, but also for consumer
protection, the fight against bribery and disclosure.

The previous guidelines were indeed insufficiently known, whether by MNEs or by other interested parties,
and many adhering countries did not implement fully all the mechanisms that were foreseen, such as
national contact points (NCPs).

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the new guidelines do not contain sanctions and adhesion
to the guidelines by MNEs remains voluntary. There is a consensus among OECD member countries that
sanctions are not appropriate for this kind of instrument. One of the reasons is that there are sanctions
foreseen in domestic law for most of the matters covered by the guidelines, such as competition or
environment rules. Another reason is that
the guidelines are not aimed at replacing this domestic
regulation of corporate behaviour, but at complementing it by giving MNEs a basic standard set of
recommendations that MNEs should voluntarily observe whatever the context. The public renown of good
corporate citizenship will be an increasingly important incentive for MNEs to join.

Implementation is entrusted to national contact points that must be established in each adhering country
in order to promote knowledge of the guidelines among MNEs and other interested parties and monitor
their effective implementation, including through pursuing good offices, conciliation and mediation in
specific instances where an enterprise is alleged not to have respected the guidelines. Adhering countries
(and their NCPs) are politically accountable and subject to peer review in the OECD committee on
investment and multinational enterprises (CIME).

The Community would not be in a position to include a reference to these guidelines in trade agreements,
as they are addressed to enterprises, as an invitation or expectation to adhere voluntarily to certain
minimum standards of conduct. Respect of these guidelines should not interfere with the legal obligations
it would be inappropriate to give the guidelines a
of MNEs under the laws of a host country. Thus,
different legal status under international
law. As to the (binding) provisions on implementation by
governments, these are contained in a decision of the OECD Council, to which other countries can adhere
voluntarily. To include a reference to this decision in bilateral agreements concluded by the Community
with third countries would also appear not useful, since the whole mechanism of the guidelines and their
implementation is based on the spontaneous commitment by adhering non-OECD countries to supple-
ment, not to replace, national and international regulation. The Community, nevertheless, will certainly
operate to encourage their observance by European firms since the guidelines constitute a step in the right
direction towards enhanced investor responsibilities worldwide and to respond to civil society(cid:146)s concerns in
relation to the behaviour of international investors.

As for the Mexican position during the negotiation, it was guided by some misconceptions about the
functioning of the new framework which could be clarified during the OECD Ministerial in June 2000. The
implementation of the revised guidelines will be subject to continuous bilateral and multilateral discussions
in order to ensure that these new guidelines are a useful instrument for all concerned.