25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007) (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Frassoni, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the 25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007).
rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is my third report on the application of Community law and I must say that - with all due respect for the considerable amount of work that we have done, together with the Commission - I do not think that we can declare ourselves to be particularly satisfied. I believe that there are basically three problems, which I would like to mention, and which have been drawn to your attention and, above all, to the attention of the Commission in our report.
As compared with the outset, I can see a tendency on the Commission's part to pay less attention to what Parliament does and asks, given that in contrast to previous practice we have received almost no reply to the questions that we have asked during the past two reports. I must say that this causes me a certain degree of frustration, since we had all agreed that the issue of the application of Community law was a priority in the 'better regulation' agenda.
We have encountered the following problems: the three fundamental issues that we discussed with the Commission were transparency, resources and the length of procedures.
We can see that with regard to the new point that we developed together, in other words the issue of transparency, progress has been rather slow and in fact, with the new regulations on access to documents, the opportunity for those who carry out infringement proceedings, or who request that infringement proceedings be opened, to find out why they have been closed or why they have been opened, is decreasing by any standards.
Secondly, I would like to talk about the issue of defining priorities: the definition of priorities, respect for and conduct of infringement proceedings must naturally involve decisions which are not merely technical but are also political and here, unfortunately, after the three or four years that we have been working on this point, we still have a problem with monitoring and the transparency mechanism, not only internally in other words, with regard to the Commission but also externally.
I would like to give you a couple of examples, particularly concerning Community law on the environment. We know that this is the main problem in the application of European law, and yet both from the point of view of resources and from the point of view of the priority given to this sector, we are still lagging significantly behind.
One of the most interesting issues, and one which was discussed in the most positive terms with the Commission, was that of the reduction in the time taken by proceedings, through a set of mechanisms that had been put forward and in part agreed with the Commission. On this issue too, however, we have remained at a stalemate due to a certain inertia, which I hope in the future can be resolved.
Also, another issue that we had debated at length with the Commission was the 'pilot project': this is a project whereby, when a citizen complains to the Commission, the complaint is forwarded to the Member State so that it can give some sort of response. The assessment that some Member States have given, particularly our Commissioner, Mr Tajani, regarding the operation of this pilot project, is relatively unsatisfactory; the fact that the Commission no longer writes directly to those who have been accused of a possible infraction greatly reduces the capacity of an administration that is guilty, let us say, of this alleged breach, to be motivated to respond.
Things are always that way: if an Italian ministry department writes to a region, that will certainly be less effective than a letter arriving directly from the Commission. This is the kind of criticism that has been made of the pilot project, but unfortunately the Commission has not given much of a response. Madam President, I reserve the right to come back in the second part of the debate, to respond to the comments that I am sure Vice-President Tajani will make.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I am here today on behalf of President Barroso, who asked me to pass on his regrets that he is unable to attend this debate on our 2007 annual report on monitoring the application of Community law.
The Commission welcomes the support given by Parliament to the approach it adopted in its 2007 communication entitled 'A Europe of results - applying Community law'.
The Barroso Commission attaches great importance to the correct application of Community law, making it a top priority. That is why the Commission has made a special effort to improve its working methods for the benefit of citizens and businesses, as explained in the 2007 communication.
Previous Parliament resolutions have inspired a significant number of the initiatives introduced in the communication. Firstly, last January we introduced more frequent decision-making in infringement proceedings with the aim of speeding up cases; secondly, we launched the 'EU Pilot' project in 15 Member States last April to test a new method aimed at improving problem solving and the availability of information; thirdly, the main purpose of this initiative, which is close to Parliament's interests, is to better serve the interests of citizens and businesses with regard to questions and problems identified in the application of Community law, including infringements of this law; fourthly, the Commission will nonetheless continue to decide to prosecute infringements in the event of non-conformance within the framework of the 'EU Pilot' project, particularly through infringement proceedings; and fifthly, President Barroso has written to the chairman of Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Gargani, with details of the pilot project's performance in December 2008. This letter also confirmed the Commission's intention to send Parliament a detailed report on the project's first year of operation, and preparatory work on this has begun.
Following on from its communication, the Commission also adopted an annual report, which is more political; while it, too, points to the work done over the course of the last year, it also seeks to identify priorities for the application of Community law and a programme to put these priorities into practice.
The report constitutes an important and strategic statement by the Commission on a key aspect of the 'Better Lawmaking' programme. One of the aims of this initiative is to provide Parliament with more useful information to form a better framework for the interinsitutional discussions that follow.
Parliament has welcomed the identification of the priorities listed in the 2008 annual report, especially those concerning fundamental rights and quality of life. For the first time, the Commission has used its annual report to set more precise priorities for the various sectors. Our goal remains to focus our work more on actions that will yield more effective results in the interests of all citizens and businesses.
The action taken on the priorities identified last year and the progress made will be shown in this year's annual report, as well as the new priorities for 2009-2010.
Thank you. I am very interested to hear the contributions to this debate from the various Members, and I will give some answers to Mrs Frassoni at the end of the debate.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. - Madam President, I should like to congratulate Ms Frassoni on her report. I think she and I now, over a period of two or three years, have enjoyed working together on this report on behalf of Parliament. That cooperation I have enjoyed; I do not enjoy the fact that we seem to end up every year repeating much the same things and having a certain sense that we are going round and round in circles.
It ought to be pretty simple, because this is about our citizens being able to see what European law is; when there is a problem, to be able to see what the enforcement process is; and, finally, to see the result of that enforcement. But, as it is, we seem to have to keep trying to invent new mechanisms all the time to actually deal with a process that is already there but is not obvious and is not transparent.
We have made some progress in that the beginning of the process, in the sense of making EU law understandable, has now been taken on board by the Commission, and I am pleased that we now see, with some regularity, so-called citizens' summaries prefacing pieces of legislation, so that we can all see - and those we represent can see - where we ought to be heading and what the law ought to achieve.
But when it comes to the enforcement process, we still seem to be in a position where the decision to enforce or not is less than obvious - why that decision may or may not be taken - and citizens are often left wondering. We have recently received a letter from somebody who had tried to get a piece of legislation enforced and is now so disgusted with the whole European set-up, having been pro-European, that they now support an anti-European party.
That is the point: if we do not get this right, we bring the whole of European law and the whole of our institutions into disrepute. It is as serious as that. All of us as Members, in these last days of this mandate, are spending our time tearing around, going from trialogue to trialogue and first-reading agreement to first-reading agreement, arguing about sets of words, the contents of sentences in legislation. That is great. But if, at the end of the day, it is not enforced in the way that our citizens expect, we might ask ourselves: what is the point?
All of our institutions have a responsibility concerning the monitoring of EU law. You, the Commission, have the primary responsibility, and I wish in a way that we did not have to have this debate in this style every year.
Madam President, one of the key principles governing the operation of the European Union is that the Member States accept the obligation to transpose and implement Community law. This principle is foundational to the process of integration. There is without doubt a need for continuous, active cooperation of the Commission and Member States in order to ensure rapid and effective answers to doubts raised by citizens and to criticise and rectify breaches in application of Community law. I welcome the declaration of the Commission on closer cooperation with the European Parliament in the area of reporting and application of Community law.
National courts play a fundamental role in applying Community law, and so I fully support the Commission's efforts at specifying additional training for judges, the legal profession and civil servants in the Member States. However, the effective application of Community law is still associated with serious challenges, including widespread delays in the transposition of directives.
One of the most important mechanisms which allow us to ascertain how, in reality, European law is applied, is the system of references for a preliminary ruling, the objective of which is to give national courts the opportunity to ensure uniform interpretation and application of European law in all Member States.
A fundamental problem with the procedure for references for a preliminary ruling is the time needed to receive an answer from the Court of Justice, which unfortunately is still around 20 months. The reason for this is always the same - translation of the trial dossiers into all the languages of the EU. This takes around nine months. Of course, these translations are extremely important, because they ensure wide access to the latest and most important European rulings and they increase legal confidence in the European Union. However, success or failure in the effective introduction of EU law will ultimately be determined by whichever institutional model is considered appropriate. Having the knowledge and the means is not everything. The will to take action is also needed.
Madam President, just as in previous years, the Commission has not responded to the issues raised in last year's resolution on monitoring the application of Community law, of which I was the author. In this respect there are three fundamental issues in which the lack of improvement remains a cause for concern: transparency, resources and the length of procedures.
Of the new cases of infringement in 2007, 1 196 concerned a failure to notify national measures relating to the transposition of Community directives. It is unacceptable that the Commission should grant itself 12 months to deal with these simple cases, which, apart from the necessity of a quick reaction, do not require any analysis or assessment. The 'EU Pilot' project, which was launched a year ago in 15 Member States to test the new method for reaction to complaints, could be extended to the other Member States, but the lack of information on assessment of its operation does not, unfortunately, allow Parliament to comment on this issue.
I regret to say that during this parliamentary term no significant progress has been made with regard to the role that Parliament should play in monitoring the application of Community law. In connection with this a call should be made for prompt implementation of the related reforms proposed by the Working Party on Reform, which enhance Parliament's capacity to monitor the application of Community law in Member States.
(ES) Madam President, for once I am glad that I am not the incumbent, glad that Mr Tajani has come, because Mr Tajani has the advantage of having been an MEP. I know that as a former Member of this House you have experienced the frustration that we have as MEPs regarding the application of Community law.
Well, in Parliament, we do have a tendency to take the Commission to task, but I think that we are setting the Commission an impossible brief, because all Community law and all application of Community law is based on indirect application.
In other words, the Commission has only a few officials in the central headquarters where it receives some complaints and has some options for action but, at the moment, the trend is to restrict budgetary powers, and so the Commission is not going to be able to act.
All Community law, and all application of Community law, is based on action by the national authorities: national parliaments, national courts and national civil servants.
Here, on this aspect, I do not believe that we can demand too much from the Commission. What we should do is to help the Commission, and I think that the report by Mrs Frassoni contains several points that may be useful in trying to make the application of Community law a reality. I am referring to the points on the correlation of national measures with directives, the cooperation of national parliaments and action by national courts.
Madam President, I wonder if Commissioner Tajani would agree that, in a sense, the biggest obstacle to the correct observation of Community law are in fact our national governments.
I will just give one example. About 20 years ago we agreed to have the four freedoms throughout the European Union. In my constituency there are many people of Italian origin, one of whom is a teacher and, obviously, a fluent Italian speaker. He returned to his family home in Italy and was forbidden to teach in his family's native country because his training was undertaken in England. That surely must be wrong, but there is nothing that we can do about it because the Italian authorities say - for whatever reason - that this is reserved for Italian nationals.
The British Government's behaviour at airports seems to me to be in flagrant breach of most European agreements. Is there something the Commission can do - maybe by making a plea, at the next summit, to our national governments to show a bit of European solidarity?
(ES) Madam President, over the last five years, as an MEP who is a member of the Committee on Petitions, I have examined hundreds and hundreds of petitions, complaints and questions regarding the environment, and I have seen the very limited extent of cooperation by the national authorities. One might even say that there is a real rebellion in progress by certain Member States against the application of the directive on natural habitats and other environmental directives.
We can see how inadequate the Commission's departments are; they have neither sufficient resources nor the political will to apply Community law in the most obvious of cases. All this goes on for so many years that, in the majority of cases, when infringement proceedings reach the European Court of Justice we are acting 'at the point of death', and so the law, in irreversible situations concerning the environment, achieves nothing.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the draft resolutions under discussion today attach particular importance to the interests of citizens, and more specifically of complainants, in the application of Community law.
Within the limitations of its obligations in terms of confidentiality, the Commission is working to be more transparent and to publish more information in its annual report on the Europa website and in its correspondence.
The Commission is in the process of developing a joint European Union portal that should help citizens. It is looking at the best way of presenting useful information to citizens and directing them towards the information that best matches their interests.
The Commission is in the process of finalising its work explaining the principle of State liability for breach of Community law, which could help citizens to obtain reparation in the national courts.
In terms of complaints, the Commission confirms the importance that it attaches to the formalities, to efficient processing of complaints and to keeping complainants informed about the progress of their complaints. It also confirms its desire to find solutions as quickly as possible.
Finally, I would like to highlight, as has been rightly done by Mrs Wallis and Mr Medina Ortega, the importance of the national courts in the application of Community law. Work is being done by the Commission in several contexts, with national judges, as Mr Zwiefka said, to raise their awareness of the different aspects of Community law and ensure that they have all the tools they need to access the relevant information.
With regard to the new 'European Union pilot' method, it is not an additional stage in the procedure. This method enables us to quickly examine whether a solution can be found directly and quickly with the parties concerned in a Member State. It was constructed on the basis of the Commission's practice over the years, adding better commitment from the Commission and the Member States taking part in terms of organising contacts and the results to target.
There are many specific points raised in the draft report under discussion today. The Commission will provide explanations on the aspects that I am not able to respond to today in its response to the resolution.
Having said that, with regard to infrastructures, which are also part of my portfolio, I can only welcome the European Parliament's invitation to ensure that infringement proceedings are dealt with and, where appropriate, closed, as they prevent Member States from investing in infrastructures that could affect the implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome the common interest shown by Parliament and the Commission in the appropriate and correct application of Community law, in the interests of citizens and enterprises.
We confirm our joint assessment of the vital importance of this aspect of the 'Better Regulation' programme.
rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to give my thanks to the President. It is very interesting that the Commissioner has chosen, out of all the resolution, the point which I, as rapporteur, am least pleased with, but nonetheless I welcome all the things that he has said and the commitments he has made on behalf of the Commission.
I also wanted to take this opportunity to point out a few problems which I hope can be tackled by the Commission. The first is a gradual reduction in the independence of the Directorates-General, subject to the combined effects of a legal service that is increasingly reluctant to go to Court and a General Secretariat that is increasingly reluctant to encourage the Member States; the examples that I could give are, alas, numerous.
There is also a real problem of ineffective control of the application of Community law because of a lack of resources: Madam President, in relation to a directive that we have studied in depth, which is Directive 2004/38/EC, there have been 1500 complaints. This is the directive on the free movement of citizens, and there have been 1500 complaints by citizens but only 19 infringement cases have been opened.
Next, with regard to the pilot project issue, I have already spoken about the problem of a reduction in persuasive force and the fact that the deadlines cannot always be shortened. Clearly, when issues are handled in the pilot project such as pollution that has already been confirmed, rules on hunting that obviously and openly conflict with Community rules, it cannot be claimed that the Member States are taking action, because this only serves to delay proceedings further.
Finally, Madam President, there is a problem which I consider to be worrying and which is relatively new, and that is the combined effect of the extreme formality, which is continuing to increase, of the replies given by the Commission, and the increasingly arbitrary nature of decisions. Recently, an infringement case was closed for reasons of political expediency - I am referring to the MoSE project. Clearly, when the concept of political expediency becomes involved in a monitoring process that ought to be, above all, a legal one, things can become complicated.
Finally, within our own institution, Parliament, we are faced with very serious problem because the reforms that we are about to debate and to vote on in May include proposals to significantly reduce the powers of the Committee on Petitions. This would be a very serious mistake, because a reduction in the power of petitions means a reduction in the power of citizens, of complaints and of the handling of infringements of Community law.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today.


13. 2009 progress report on Croatia (
Before the vote on Amendment 35:
Mr President, after discussing this with Mrs Brantner from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I would like to recommend voting in favour of the first part and against the second, contrary to the list which we have drawn up.


Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes


Order of business
The final version of the draft agenda for this part-session as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday 20 November 2008 pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure has been distributed. It has been requested that this draft be amended as follows:
Wednesday
The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance propose postponing both the voting on the report by Mrs De Keyser on the participation of the State of Israel in Community programmes and the voting on the motions for a resolution regarding the same topic.
Mr President, our request is based on a very clear fact known to everyone. At the end of last May, an official delegation from our Parliament, representing all political groups, went to Israel and visited the Palestinian territories including Gaza.
On the basis of what they observed on the ground, at the end of this visit, they unanimously adopted a statement. This statement includes the following:
'We strongly feel that without serious signs of good faith translated into tangible improvements on the ground, the time is not yet right to upgrade EU-Israel relations'.
(FR) Since then, no such significant signs have been apparent, quite the contrary. This is why we think that it would be a very bad signal today if we were to vote in favour of the recommendation made by the Council.
My group proposes that we postpone this vote until there is evidence, in Israel's policy and on the ground, of these famous signs called for unanimously by the delegation representing our Parliament a few months ago.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes we must take very difficult decisions. I think that the dispute which we in Europe - here in this House - are having about Israel and Palestine is always very difficult.
When we take decisions, we must also actually keep the vision in mind. It would be disastrous if this House were to vote against a motion to strengthen the connections between Israel and the European Parliament. I repeat, it would be disastrous to vote against it. But it would also be disastrous to vote in favour when we all know how difficult and delicate the situation is. I was in Israel 14 days ago and saw for myself that both the Israelis and the Palestinians really are at the end of their tether. It would be disastrous to increase the frustration of the Israelis by saying no. And it would be just as disastrous to increase the frustration of the Palestinians by saying yes. Therefore, if we are intelligent, let us postpone the vote. For we still need to talk, we need to act. Sometimes it is more intelligent to continue the discussion calmly than to take a decision emotionally and too quickly which will frustrate and disappoint either one side or the other.
In Europe we have a mediatory function and we must retain this function. For this reason, we propose postponing this vote. Being intelligent sometimes means waiting.
Mr President, I must mention in this regard that Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, including the rapporteur, Mrs de Keyser, voted overwhelmingly in favour of Mrs de Keyser's report.
As we said to the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday when she met with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, we understand the extreme concern felt by this House about the humiliation and frustration that the people of Palestine are suffering.
It is precisely for those reasons, however, that we believe that Parliament has to take a stand, Mr President, in the first instance by means of a resolution. I can announce that my political group will accept the amendments tabled by the Left to establish a relationship. It is not a matter of upgrading relations with Israel, Mr Wurtz, but of voting for a resolution and for the assent that the European Parliament, according to the powers attributed to it by the Treaties, has to give to negotiations undertaken by the European Commission and the 27 Member States.
That, Mr President, is why we believe that the European Parliament has to take a firm stand for peace - peace in the Middle East - and give its assent to the agreement on scientific and technological cooperation with Israel. This item must therefore be kept on the agenda for the present plenary, as the Conference of Presidents of the political groups itself decided.


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


Statute of the European Private Company, Company Law (debate)
The next item is the oral question by Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, to the Commission on the state of play in the legislative proceedings on the 'Statute of the European Private Company' and of the 'Fourteenth Company Law Directive' - B6-0137/0000).
author. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question is very important both institutionally and politically, bearing in mind that it is of considerable political and institutional significance.
I should like to say very clearly, and I take responsibility for my words, that the European Commission has seriously failed the European Parliament since it has failed to follow up Parliament's formal requests and has failed to present proposals for legislation on European Private Companies and relocations of head offices of capital companies.
A proposal for legislation on the statute of the company was formally requested in February 2007, on the basis of Article 192 of the Treaty and - as I would like to stress, and I would ask the Commissioner to listen because this is a very important oral question, Mr President, to which an answer must be given - after a thorough debate, together with a hearing with qualified and representative experts who showed us how necessary such an instrument was and how useful it would be in fostering small enterprises keen to operate effectively in the internal market.
It was the Commission's duty, Commissioner, immediately to launch the procedure for adopting the legislative proposal, starting with an impact assessment. The Commission already had, moreover, a feasibility study from December 2005, but did nothing and instead took its time until in July it launched a consultation on the need - here again no more than a hypothetical discussion - for a European Private Company, as though Parliament, as the elected representative of the Union as a whole, could not legitimately base its request on a substantive legislative act.
I shall not look in detail at the European legislation, as Klaus Lehne, one of the Committee's main experts and a leader in this field, will shortly talk about the legal aspects of the question. I should like to look at the problem in greater depth and remind the Commissioner, so that he can give due consideration to everything that I say, of the relationship that exists between the institutions and on which the necessary cooperation between the Commission and Parliament has to be based.
In my opinion, Commissioner, you personally have done Parliament a discourtesy, you have snubbed Parliament. You have ignored Parliament's requests adopted on the basis of Article 192 and in particular the interinstitutional agreement 'Better Regulation', and there have been many failures to act - I have been Chairman of that committee and I am very well aware how many questions are pending - even though the Commission had formally undertaken not only to take account of requests but also to provide rapid and appropriate answers to Parliament's committees. That has not been the case at all!
The failure to comply with those obligations brings up the Commission's accountability, which I have no difficulty in defining as legal, to the European Parliament. At the conference on company law organised by the German Presidency, Mr Lehne rightly said that the European Commission could be brought before the Court for Justice for failure to fulfil its obligations.
Parliament, and I say this very clearly, should be aware that the Commission, on its Internet site, has already confirmed that the consultations held in 1997 and 2002 showed a high-level and specific demand from economic operators. The Commission therefore knows how important this issue is and is aware that it has a duty and an obligation to reply to Parliament's requests.
Not only has it failed to approve the proposal for legislation, but at the Berlin conference the Commissioner went as far as to say that further discussion of the usefulness of the proposal was necessary. That has left us very perplexed because we now need to consider - as the Commissioner says - whether the European Parliament still has a chance effectively to demonstrate the validity of that proposal for legislation.
A directive in this field - I am concluding - would certainly provide a sound legal basis for companies' freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. We are awaiting a detailed proposal from the Commissioner which means not just going along with the various lobbies, from England, from the United Kingdom and Ireland, I think, but addressing an adverse situation. It is not the interests of individual countries that have to be served, Commissioner, as you are well aware, but the interests of Europeans! Parliament is not a lobby and we are actually and tangibly expressing that requirement and that necessity!
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the oral question tabled by Mr Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, gives me the opportunity to provide you with an update on where the Commission stands regarding the 14th Company Law Directive and the European Private Company (EPC).
As you are aware, and as part of our 'better regulation' approach, a public consultation on the EPC statute was launched on 20 July by the Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services. This consultation aims at gathering stakeholders' views on the need for such a statute and its possible content.
I know that the European Parliament would like the Commission to accelerate the process. However, we need to do the necessary preparatory work. An essential part of this is to consult stakeholders on different possible regulatory options - that is, a more uniform but less flexible statute, or a statute which gives a lot of freedom to users but results in a variety of EPC structures across the European Union. We need to hear stakeholders' opinions on which option is the most attractive for companies. That is what better regulation is about.
The feasibility study at the end of 2005 offered a rather general assessment of the current situation, but does not provide a clear answer as to the best policy option and the possible elements of the EPC statute. That is why we need a more in-depth analysis. The study will, of course, provide good background material for our work. We have also benefited from the European Parliament's report on the EPC statute and its recommendations on the possible content of such a statute.
Concerning the proposal for a 14th Company Law Directive, the preparatory work on this issue has not been conclusive. Our better regulation and impact policy requires us to demonstrate that an initiative has clear economic benefit before embarking upon it. I should be in a position shortly to make a more definitive statement on this issue in regard to the value added of such a proposal.
We need to reflect further before making such a proposal, which, frankly, risks being controversial. As Members know, I am not afraid of being controversial, but I need to be convinced that the potential benefits for the European Union of such an initiative merit a legislative proposal.
This is not about procrastination but about the belief that, to produce good quality work, the preparatory work must be carried out properly. Within the next couple of months I will inform Members of how I intend to proceed on these important issues.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I must say I am pleased that Commissioner McCreevy, in his answer to this oral question, did not reject the European Parliament's suggestions. Over the past few years, there have been so many hearings and consultations about the European Private Company that I cannot understand why we need to have a third, a fourth, a fifth and perhaps even a sixth or however many more. The matter is closed. We had an initial proposal in the Commission's action plan. That was approved, in the revised action plan, by the majority of stakeholders. The hearings in Parliament produced an unequivocal message. Parliament's decisions could not have been clearer, and on that basis I cannot accept any further delays.
Experts are generally agreed that there is a gap in the law in the Directive on the cross-border transfer of registered seat. The European Union offers freedom of movement of capital - that is, the option of moving one's property or capital to a different location - but if I own a business, I do not currently have that option because I cannot decide freely where to base my business, or where to transfer it to, within the European Union. That is very clearly a gap in the law. The Commission, in its annual legislative programme, announced its intention of closing the gap. Currently we have a situation where the European Court of Justice is developing its own case-law in this area and tending towards Wild West-style deregulation, for the simple reason that the legislature is inert; it is doing nothing to address the areas where we lack harmonisation. It is high time that the legislature acted, instead of handing all responsibility over to the Court of Justice.
One final point: the European Commission's monopoly on initiative does not exist in a vacuum. Like any monopoly, it has to be seen in a context and, in this case, the context follows from the Treaty and the Interinstitutional Agreements. According to those texts, both the Council and the European Parliament have an indirect right of initiative. The Commission, in the Interinstitutional Agreements, has undertaken to respond to their proposals. That being so, I wish to make it very clear that if the Commission fails to deliver a substantive response on this issue within the stipulated time limit, I shall propose to the Committee on Legal Affairs that we take proceedings against it in the European Court for failure to act.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I welcome the Commissioner's remarks, particularly as commitment to better regulation involves clear team work of regulators and those people affected working together to develop a piece of legislation. I also welcome that he is clear that there have to be economic objectives and that has to reflect market needs.
Looking through the Commission's own summary of this consultation on company law, I notice that less than half the respondents call for the adoption of a European private company statute. That seems to be slightly at odds with some of the statements we have heard so far, so perhaps he could clarify exactly what those responses were. I also notice that most people wanted a codification and consolidation of existing company law, rather than anything going further. Clearly, he has got quite a difficult balancing act.
What I want to know is: to what extent have we identified so far a clear need for legislation at a European level, as opposed to a domestic one? I suspect that, in some cases, the pressure is coming from those who have very complex domestic laws and who want a European law to simplify matters. However, the problem is we have a European law on top of domestic laws and we often find it makes life much more complicated. Surely, the whole object of this exercise is simplification and clarification.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, when I last spoke on this issue in February, I drew to the Commissioner's attention the fact that I did not like all the recommendations in Parliament's report, such as the size of the capital, because I felt that would make any statute along those lines discriminatory in favour of larger companies. Therefore, I welcome the fact that in the Commissioner's latest consultation, he is urging responses by SMEs.
However, we all need to be proactive in seeking those, with emphasis on the small rather than the medium. I shall certainly be doing this within my region and I am pleased to say that there are other bodies within the UK doing likewise, so I welcome efforts to establish the relevance to small companies. This is particularly the case when it is information from smaller companies that is frequently lacking, while, at the same time, we readily acknowledge that it is just those companies that do not have the means to deal with the different laws and regulations and, therefore, in theory at least it is those who we want to benefit most from the statute.
As I see it, this House has made some proposals that would render the statute unlikely to find favour with those very smaller companies, so there is a problem. My message is to keep it simple otherwise, for small companies at least, it would just be a fig leaf for no change.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the competitiveness of companies and the efficiency of the internal market also require appropriate and up-to-date legal statutes for companies. Some progress has been made in the case of large undertakings, with the adoption of the regulation on the European Private Company Statute on 8 October 2001. In 2004, the European Commission opened up a discussion on a new form of European company, designed more specifically for small and medium-sized undertakings: the European Private Company.
That initiative was very warmly welcomed by all those who had been awaiting it for the past 30 years - yes, 30 years. The results of the feasibility study on the Statute by the Commission were presented in December 2005. It clearly showed that the vast majority of the economic operators interviewed wanted such a statute, for two main reasons. Firstly, the introduction of a European statute would have the advantage of removing obstacles to the establishment and mobility of SMEs in the European Union. Secondly, it would enable a European label to be created for SMEs, particularly those in the new Member States.
For SMEs, the European Private Company seems an effective way of accessing the European market. Its adoption would also indirectly contribute to the evolution and harmonisation of national law, which, in turn, encourages the development and integration of the European economy. This new statute would meet the need to simplify the legal instruments available to companies and make them more effective.
It is my belief that many small and medium-sized undertakings would gain from such a statute, which would, obviously, remain optional. The European Private Company plan is strongly supported in economic circles in virtually all the Member States. That is certainly the case in France and Germany.
Parliament has approved the own-initiative report by Mr Lehne, whose conclusions I support, but at the moment no progress is being made. That is why I am supporting the questions to the Commission from Mr Gargani, on behalf of JURI. It is important to know what are the fundamental problems that have caused the Commission to delay its work on this issue.
(ES) Mr President, I share the point of view expressed by President Gargani and Mr Lehne on the need to press forward with European Union rules on company registered offices and the Statute of the European Private Company.
Mr McCreevy has told us in his reply that there are some problems, that there has been a delay, that consultations have been launched on one of the proposals and that for the other no point of view has apparently been defined as yet. So we are faced with the familiar issue of the adoption of Community legislation and the improvement of Community rules.
Mr Lehne has made it clear that the atmosphere here is one of cooperation between the institutions: Parliament is not on one side and the Commission on the other. Parliament hopes that the Commission can present initiatives soon because the Commission's power of initiative is part of the framework for cooperation with the other institutions. Commissioner McCreevy has spoken about difficulties with regard to the Member States but it is still not clear to us as a result of this debate where the objections lie, and whether they come from the private sector proper or essentially from the Member States.
Which States are opposed to Community rules of this type being adopted? Are we talking of solely private opposition? As Mr McCreevy will have another opportunity to speak I hope he will be able to offer some further clarification as to where the difficulties lie, whether in the private sector or essentially with the Member States.
Member of the Commission. - I wish to thank all Members for their comments.
I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr Gargani when he said that the Commission has not done anything and that it ignored Parliament. When we discussed Parliament's resolution on 1 February 2007 in Brussels, I undertook to answer Parliament in detail and I have every intention of living up to that commitment. I also noted the request from a number of Members, during our debate on 1 February, not to ignore preparatory work. Consultation on the EPC was duly launched in July. There is some support amongst stakeholders for a European Private Company. But it would be wrong to assume that there is consensus on its possible content, as both Mr Titley and Mrs Bowles have illustrated. Jumping to a conclusion risks parking the proposal on the shelf before it even gets started.
The debate is closed.


Corporate social responsibility (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Howitt on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on corporate social responsibility: a new partnership.
rapporteur. - Mr President, companies, politicians and above all people understand that the problems of world poverty and of environmental degradation remain stubbornly prevalent in today's world. For ten years, many companies have begun to examine how they can manage their own social and environmental impacts through initiatives for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Business cannot be expected to take responsibility alone for meeting these challenges. However, it is now time for the communications, the conferences and the codes of conduct to begin to make a significant and measurable difference and a move from process to outcome.
In this vote, the European Parliament will draw attention to the limitations of voluntary CSR reporting and of social auditing as it exists today. We will say that the drive for ever lower prices can prejudice fair treatment for people at work. We will insist that CSR can only work by adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, internationally-agreed standards and independent monitoring and verification. We will call for actions to tackle corporate abuses in the world's developing countries and to provide means for redress for its victims.
The Commission's communications seem to me to opt out of this debate, to prescribe an 'anything goes' approach to CSR and to risk Europe falling behind, compared with the rest of the world. However, tonight I am not proposing that we reject the Commission's approach. Indeed, I am asking the European Parliament to contribute constructively by seeking to rewrite some of the agenda and, where the Commission is making commitments, to come forward with detailed recommendations to turn fine words into concrete actions, to give full transparency to the evolving alliance for business, to rebuild confidence in the European multi-stakeholder forum and bring the NGOs back to the table, to make a genuine financial contribution to enabling CSR to grow, to genuinely put into operation support for CSR principles in Commission policies and programmes, including enterprise, employment, corporate governance and, in particular, trade and development programmes.
I know that Commissioners Verheugen and Špidla will not be able to accept all of Parliament's recommendations tonight. However, I am heartened and grateful for the private meetings I have held with them as this report has evolved. I now call on them publicly to promise that decisive progress will be made on CSR at EU level within the life of this Commission.
I also know that some Members in the debate will seek to oppose the report: I say to them that this report represents a carefully crafted compromise between the political groups. Indeed, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the shadow rapporteur.
The one clear piece of new legislation we will support will be for mandatory environmental and social reporting by business, reiterating our previous position and sending a powerful political signal from this Parliament. All of our other proposals are about more effective use and implementation of the existing regulatory framework and support for voluntary action.
I say to the opponents inside this Parliament and to the one or two associations outside that, in their enthusiasm to block action at EU level, I do not believe that they do justice or genuinely represent the best interests or the best of business when it comes to CSR. Take the Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, speaking on behalf of the business leaders' initiative for human rights, which told us: 'Minimum standards are essential for a level playing field to be developed in this area'. Take the European Investment and Research Service, who told us: 'If you can go some way to rekindling the interest of the Commission in a more substantive approach to CSR, that would be most welcome'. Or take the French business confederation MEDEF, speaking of behalf of Business Europe: 'I want to thank you very much for the quality and the relevance of most of the questions and suggestions put forward by you.'
Now is not the time to retreat. It is time to be ambitious and to show vision and take all of these and others together. One of the key ways we can get greater enthusiasm, dynamism and consensus behind EU action on CSR is by championing it in global institutions and better implementing global CSR initiatives here in Europe. There is also the strategic partnership that I propose between the Commission and the global reporting initiative, a new business dialogue between the EU and Japan on corporate social responsibility, and the use of the fifth anniversary this year of the World Summit on Sustainable Development as an opportunity for us in Europe to lead the international debate for intergovernmental initiatives and corporate accountability, which was agreed at Johannesburg.
When the Commission published its communication it said it wanted Europe to be a pole of excellence for CSR. When I read it I feared that CSR in Europe was instead falling down a black hole. However, if we can agree substantively on many of the recommendations in this Parliament report, I believe that we can make the Commission's aspiration come true.
Mr President, honourable Members, it is indeed true to say that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is marching ahead in Europe, and last year's communication from the Commission triggered a great wave of activities and new ideas.
It is because CSR can make a great contribution to sustainable development and enhance Europe's potential for innovation and its competitiveness that it is closely tied in with our strategy for growth and employment, the object of which is not only to create more jobs but also, and primarily, to create better ones. We are talking here not about short-term successes or apparently favourable quarterly results, but rather about the need for our companies to adjust in the long term to the changed conditions under which we have to compete in the world as a whole.
Favourable social conditions may well be an important factor in competition, but producing them is not a responsibility for policy-makers alone; businesses have a responsibility of their own, and it goes beyond mere obedience to the law. They are responsible for the social climate, for the environment, for equality of opportunity, for training, for innovation and for structural change; to sum up, they are responsible for the people who work for them, and for the location where they are based.
The Commission welcomes Mr Howitt's report, which is evidence of deep knowledge and competence and not only essentially endorses the Commission's aim of strengthening CSR in Europe, but also makes an important contribution towards achieving it. I certainly agree that the debate should aim to achieve concrete results; that the multi-stakeholder approach should embrace all the interested parties and groups affected; and that the whole process should be even better integrated into the Lisbon Strategy.
You will be aware that the Commission believes that the openings for regulation in this area are limited. We do not believe that an enterprise's culture can be imposed from above or standardised by legislation, and that is why the Commission has been unwilling to take a decision in favour of proposing a regulation on CSR or the standardisation of it at European level.
If something, somewhere, has to be regulated; if we, by reason of our political responsibility have to insist on businesses doing something, then we have to summon up the courage to enact the relevant legislation, which must be specific and practically relevant to the area in question, but corporate social responsibility is, by definition, something that goes beyond companies' obligations under the law and is more than that which we lay down in regulations.
We want to support businesses and to encourage them to make use of the internationally recognised instruments, which are available in great numbers. The Commission is also supporting CSR in the global context, for example, through the EU-Africa Business Forum, brought into existence by my fellow-Commissioner Mr Michel, in which representatives of businesses from both continents met in November 2006 to discuss social responsibility.
The Commission is continuing to discuss with developing countries the progress being made in implementing the basic standards of the International Labour Organisation, and, in Europe, we are promoting the further development of relevant instruments within the various sectors, alongside multi-sectoral initiatives.
My fellow-Commissioner Mr Špidla and I are meeting more and more business people who are getting committed to and involved in making Europe a front-runner where CSR is concerned, and who see it as putting their businesses at a definite advantage on the market. In the short time in which it has been in existence, the European CSR Alliance has set in motion some impressive and exemplary initiatives, and far-sighted managers and investors have long known that a company with a good record of CSR is usually a successful one, as, indeed, is evident from the prices at which such businesses' shares are quoted on stock exchanges.
The Commission calls on Europe's businesses to make CSR a European brand and to compete for the best ideas. We are convinced that a European company must be one that acknowledges its own social responsibility and acts accordingly. That is something on which the Commission and your House are in complete agreement.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my colleague Mr Verheugen has characterised the general framework of corporate social responsibility. I feel I must emphasise that this is about voluntary commitments on the part of businesses, commitments that clearly go beyond what the law requires. This must not of course restrict the right of any lawmaker or relevant authority to draw up any law it deems essential.
Given that the general framework has been described sufficiently clearly, I should like to present a number of specific areas in which we support corporate initiatives and which form part of the March 2006 strategy.
First of all, businesses play a major role in professional cohesion and also support social cohesion insofar as they hire workers and are involved in human resources management. Secondly, 2007 has been declared the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. We have neither the right nor the means to deprive ourselves of our diverse talents, and therefore we support corporate initiatives aimed at equal opportunities. Thirdly, an important part of the intergenerational pact, which ageing Europe desperately needs, is cohesion and the retention of older people in employment. The other priorities in the March communication, such as health, investment in lifelong learning, innovation in training, science and operating on a global scale are equally important. The text you will be debating addresses these very issues.
If we want to ensure that corporate social responsibility continues into the 21st century there needs to be dialogue with the whole community, and for this reason in December we held a multi-stakeholder forum on corporate social responsibility. At the same time, it was decided to convene a European level discussion body from one of the plenary sittings, which will bring together representatives from civil society, the world of business and academic institutions. These forums have made it possible for us to assess the results of initiatives launched since 2004. As regards Commission initiatives I believe that corporate social responsibility is becoming increasingly influential across all of our policies, and in particular in external EU policy. Issues of common interest for the future have also been staked out, such as education, research and working conditions across chains of subcontractors. This will clearly have a major impact in fostering more secure social conditions in regions outside Europe for subcontractors who work for European firms.
There is much work to be done but we are on the right track. It can be seen from our debates and discussions with interested parties that corporate social responsibility is an increasingly important issue. It is important to maintain existing conditions and to be unstinting in our efforts.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur and congratulate him on his report. I think he has managed to present a report that can secure widespread support in this Chamber.
I think it is important to make some remarks about corporate social responsibilities. First of all, the main task of companies is to deliver the services and products they are established for and to be run at a profit, because otherwise they will not survive. If they cannot fulfil these main tasks, they will fail in their fundamental social responsibility as employers and as producers of services and goods.
I think it is important to underline this when we discuss how to define corporate social responsibilities. Our point of view - because we have discussed this question in the ITRE committee as well as within our group - is that it should be a matter of voluntary responsibility. It has to be performed on its own merits and as a part of the responsibility that the individual company has in society.
Companies have a social role in society. They must be good employers, delivering services and products of a high quality, because otherwise they will lose credibility and they will lose out in the market. But there are also grounds for saying that they must behave well in their own terms, because good and strong companies who stand up for fundamental values, whether in Europe or anywhere else in the world, are contributing to a better world, but also to a better economy and to better products and services.
There should be voluntary responsibility, because otherwise legislation would be needed and that is another matter. If we try to streamline too much, we will lose the variety and the dynamism that each company can deliver by making the most of its opportunities to be a good employer, a good company and a good service and product provider.
Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (EL) Mr President, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, in its opinion on corporate social responsibility, calls on the rapporteur for a holistic understanding of this issue, because it believes that the role of companies is fundamental as regards respect for the values underpinning the European Union, irrespective of where they trade, within or outside the European Union, and irrespective of their size, of whether they are small or medium-sized enterprises, multinationals and so on.
At global level, core standards of the International Labour Organisation are promoted through corporate social responsibility. Within a framework of voluntary action, they can introduce measures to support female human resources, within the framework of national and Community legislation on gender equality and non-discrimination, both during the recruitment procedure and during the procedure to promote and elect women to the administration bodies, to the board of directors, when promoting the planning of actions for corporate social responsibility.
We congratulate the European Commission on reinforcing the new alliance and we do not believe that it will be a repetition of the multi-stakeholder forum. A charter of good practice to which companies subscribe voluntarily will help to promote actions for the living and working environment and facilitate a better combination of professional and home life alongside cultural and educational services.
Finally, we are calling for good corporate social responsibility practices to be promoted and rewarded, especially in the gender equality sector, but not with a mandatory report by companies.
Commissioners, allow me to express the view that the possibilities of voluntary application of corporate social responsibility, not as a means of advertising or competition, should be planned in the multi-stakeholder forum, which is a forum for discussion between all the social partners, and we hope that there will be significant female participation in it.
Mr President, far and away most of the EU's businesses have committed themselves to social responsibility, to socially and environmentally responsible action, to the protection of people and their environment, and to security of production. They support cultural and religious facilities, sports and clubs. As both Commissioners have just said, though, it is and remains a prerequisite that these things should be done on a voluntary basis, something laid down in the European Parliament report back in 2003, and, a year later, on the occasion of the founding of the Multi-Stakeholder Forum. If you want to maintain the voluntary character of this commitment, you have to reject binding regulations and suffocating bureaucracy.
A comprehensive reporting system ought, if at all, to be expected only of large companies; SMEs, which make up over 90% of all companies, cannot cope with it, for they quite simply lack the human and financial resources required to give an all-round picture of their CSR. My group's shadow rapporteur, Mr Bushill-Matthews, has succeeded in reaching some compromises that have the effect of defusing the Howitt report, which my group in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was right to reject.
I count it a victory that the demand for the award of public contracts to be made dependent on compliance with social and environmental clauses has been largely struck out. Firms must be able to win a public contract even if they do not have an ecologically-correct pot of flowers in front of the factory gate and even if the menu of their works canteen does not include alternative meals.
Paragraph 11, which calls for the setting-up of a central point of coordination for CSR, is problematic, as are paragraphs 39 and 55, which advocate the appointment of an ombudsman for CSR. I am opposed to any extension of enterprises' liability and obligations to account for their corporate social responsibility, and regard such dirigiste manipulations as unacceptable.
Finally, we are talking today about an own-initiative report, one that many do not take seriously on the grounds that it is thought to be no more than a declamation. What I say is: principiis obsta - resist that which is only just beginning! If this House calls for some of all this to be made mandatory, then legislative measures from the Commission are no longer far away.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) A transnational company has, within its network in one of the new Member States, employed people living with handicaps as cleaners in a city struggling with social problems. The company received subsidies from the local authorities for these employees with handicaps, thereby depleting almost the entire funding source available for this purpose. In my view this mode of behaviour does not meet our expectations regarding corporate social responsibility.
The efforts to recover costs can and must in all cases be harmonised with social goals. This is pointed out in Richard Howitt's excellent report. I would add that a favourable economic environment has since the early 1990s attracted numerous transnational companies to Central and Eastern Europe. Certain regions of the new EU Member States continue, however, to experience multiple disadvantages. To use a distinctive phrase: they are in a sense the European Union's internal peripheries. Therefore we must make it clear to transnational companies as well that their actions must follow the principle of 'think globally - act locally'. This will help avoid that certain regions of the Union become peripheries that only 'think globally'.
This is why I consider Richard Howitt's report to be important, and this is why I hope that it does not sink under arguments over formalities, but will develop its role within the European social model of CSR. Corporate social responsibility does not simply mean avoiding doing harm, but is an ordered system for positive actions. The question here is not whether or not certain actions can be prescribed, but rather whether they can fulfil expectations in view of a better world. It is my belief that they can. We can expect that they treat employees as human beings, in their entirety, with their rights, state of health and cultural and social traditions. Richard Howitt's report is a very important step along this path.
(ET) I am certain that corporate social responsibility promotes sustainable development and also the improved implementation of the Lisbon Strategy in such matters as the more sensible use of natural resources, improving the results of innovation activity, the reduction of poverty, and also, of course, improved compliance with human rights requirements.
Corporate social responsibility should also act as an additional measure for the management of industry and restructuring, and act so that new areas are added to it; for instance, lifelong learning, equal opportunities, social involvement, sustainable development, and also ethics.
Companies' participation in such social activities must be voluntary. If we wish to move forward towards the creation and development of traditions in the area of corporate social responsibility, it is inevitable that we follow agreed and internationally recognised principles.
We have no other framework or agreed system with which we could adequately measure companies' activities in connection with corporate social responsibility. Thus the creation of the institution of ombudsman would be premature and pointless at the present moment. The imposition of a package of regulations would not have a positive effect, and would instead lead to negative counter-reactions.
I would like to thank the rapporteur for his eight years of persistent activity in aiming to achieve this objective. Thank you for giving me the floor.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Howitt on his report. However, I am not sure that I am so happy about the deal he made with the PPE-DE Group to weaken what we will vote on tomorrow.
Yesterday I participated in a citizens' consultation, and it is quite obvious what citizens want - they want Europe to be more active on environmental issues. I think that last Friday's Council was well received by citizens.
The second thing that citizens want is greater social responsibility, and I am afraid the Barroso-Verheugen Commission went in entirely the opposite direction when it took office. So, Commissioner, you have already turned somewhat on environmental and energy issues under pressure from science and from citizens. I hope that this report by Parliament, especially if it is not watered down too much tomorrow, will help you to reconsider your social agenda. It was the Commission not being active enough in the multi-stakeholder dialogue that played a large part in frustrating NGOs to the extent that they left the table completely.
There are some good bits in the report which will be voted on tomorrow. I just wanted to highlight one issue: the deletion of paragraph 63, in which we call for global leadership from the European Union on this issue. Why is this important? With more Chinese oil and mining companies investing in Africa and other areas, if Europe does not elevate corporate social responsibility from a purely European issue to a global, UN issue, our companies will lose out, so I do not understand how the PPE-DE and the PSE Groups can delete a paragraph from the original report as voted on that calls for us to be much more proactive on a global level.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate and thank Mr Howitt for his initiative and his report, and to endorse the series of amendments adopted in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.
As has been demonstrated, the main problem or the main question in our debate is over whether regulation is in fact needed in this area or whether a voluntary approach will suffice. I for one am not in favour of excessive bureaucracy and superfluous regulation. In questions such as corporate social responsibility, however, it is clear that relying on the goodwill of businesses is simply not enough. Otherwise, a part of the population of Europe will find itself facing an unequal situation. I feel, though, that what is needed is a workable legal instrument that would force companies to fulfil their responsibilities not only in the social field but also in the area of protecting working conditions, health at work and the environment.
Although I warmly endorse this report, I have tabled two amendments in conjunction with members of our group, the purpose of which is firstly to sound a warning about the current situation and the problems faced by workers regarding, for example, company relocations, low salaries, precarious work and insufficient health protection at work, and secondly to express our objection to the policies proposed by the Commission in the area of social responsibility, which often do not match the goals and the principles on which corporate social responsibility should be based.
I hope we will succeed in producing not only a statement of intent, but also the practical instruments needed to take practical action. If not, we will end up with mere window-dressing, and I believe that the citizens expect more from us than that.
Mr President, in this House we talk constantly about the Lisbon Agenda, which is supposed to make the EU the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. The Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, likes to boast about his plans to control excessive regulation to help enhance the competitiveness of European economies.
Yet this report, as originally presented, sought to create mandatory regulation of a wide range of areas of corporate activity, including employee relations and the environment. But these areas are already heavily regulated, indeed massively over-regulated, by EU legislation already on the statute book. What we were proposing to do here was to double up on existing regulation with all the potential for ambiguity and confusion that would have created.
Mandatory CSR would be hugely damaging to competitiveness, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, to which we constantly pay lip-service but which we constantly seek to strangle with oppressive, intrusive and unnecessary regulation. However, there are now agreed amendments which firmly establish the voluntary nature of CSR and I for one strongly support those amendments. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to promote CSR, but we also need to protect the enterprise, productivity, competitiveness and wealth-creating capacity of European businesses.
We should also be aware of existing best practice of CSR amongst existing major businesses. Last summer, I had the privilege of visiting the Gates Foundation in Seattle, which of course is run by Bill Gates of Microsoft. This Foundation's spending on philanthropy exceeds the GDP of a number of small countries. Arguably, it does more to relieve poverty and hardship in Africa than EU aid does and, because it is a private sector organisation, its spending is hugely more efficient. I believe that, with the amendments that we are proposing to put in place here, we should be able to support this report.
(PT) Mr President, the main function of business is wealth creation, but companies are, in certain circumstances, capable of being more than merely wealth-generating machines. Companies can also be seen as communities in which people live and interact; people can view their company as their place of professional fulfilment, and even, in many cases, personal happiness.
Successful companies, those capable of creating wealth, are those that normally enjoy good relations with their partners, customers, suppliers and with the community in which they operate. Successful companies are those that adopt transparency criteria in their relations with the authorities and operate on the basis of codes of conduct and ethics, which are sometimes extremely stringent.
If one were to describe companies that exist for a long time in human terms, there are companies that function with a strong personality, with a particular culture that they have managed to create and develop and that identifies them and distinguishes them from the others. These are companies, one might say, with emotions and feelings. Companies such as these opt to give more to the community over and above their traditional functions and thereby take on a greater responsibility; this is what might be termed 'social responsibility'. I feel, however, that corporate social responsibility is not something that can be decreed or imposed, but something that must be entered into willingly. Corporate social responsibility can never be imposed from above. If it were, there would be a risk of reducing its role to a public relations exercise aimed at creating a smokescreen and at enabling companies to sidestep their responsibilities of addressing social and environmental issues. In which case corporate social responsibility would be a fraud because it would be insincere.
I endorse the report before us because, in its final version, my view on the issue was ultimately taken into account.
(ES) Mr President, I am obliged to begin by thanking Mr Howitt for his wonderful work and for his extraordinary willingness to receive the contributions that other members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs have presented to him. He is also showing great capacity and flexibility on such a complex issue, opening himself up to dialogue and agreement with other groups in Parliament.
As others have said, I believe that corporate social responsibility is good per se. This must not lead us to think, however, that it is not possible to improve our current framework and the relatively short experience we have acquired in the European Union. I believe that the world's problems are increasing at a considerable speed, both environmental problems and the problems faced by people who are deprived of all kinds of rights. I therefore believe that we must make an additional effort.
That is all Mr Howitt is asking us for in his report. I hope that the Commission, whose Communication has had a mixed reception, not very positive in some cases, will see this as an opportunity to take more account of social responsibility. Much can still be done, avoiding false debates on what should be voluntary and what should not. We must continue moving forward with a view to creating criteria to make responsibility objective. Companies will be free to adopt codes of conduct, but they cannot be free when it comes to respecting the codes of conduct that they have adopted. There must be transparency, there must be more than philanthropy in this notion of corporate social responsibility.
We Europeans offer the world a model based on the sustainability of our economic model for us and for others. We can go further on the control and verification of these obligations that have been taken on freely. We have directives in the European Union. Directives that have not been transposed in the Member States on union law, on environmental responsibilities. The Commission can make commitments and not take the laissez faire, laissez passer approach to everything.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for a few minutes now, each of us, in turn, has been repeating the fact that we do not want the forthcoming provisions to result in so many additional constraints and regulations. We want a commitment on the part of business leaders, we want them to be proactive, we want this proactive approach to be applied internationally, we want SMEs to commit themselves and, as the rapporteur said, above and beyond declarations, we want something concrete. As a company director myself for over thirty years, well, I want things to be able to materialise.
With this in mind, I have a proposal for you, Commissioners. A system is already applied internationally by hundreds of thousands of businesses. This system coordinates the social responsibility of businesses via the ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 18001 standards, which ensure that business relationships with customers are better, that practices are totally environmentally-friendly and that hygiene, health and safety rules are complied with in full. Therefore, allow to me to suggest, Commissioners, the use of these three management standards with the aim of having businesses throughout our Europe genuinely assume their social responsibilities.
Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this excellent report.
One of the key points to come out of the report is that we are not just looking at corporate social responsibility within the European Union, but beyond the Union as well, and at the behaviour of European companies elsewhere in the world - a move away from the double standards of how you operate here with one legislative framework and what you think you can get away with somewhere else.
What we have heard from the Commission on the Africa Forum is a good initiative, but we need to look much more closely at how companies behave in conflict zones. We have the leadership on the diamond process at the moment and we need to move forward on that.
I also note from the report that voluntary reporting is now stabilising and that not all voluntary reports cover supply chain compliance, which is one of the most important mechanisms we have to drive up standards, to ensure brand protection for companies behaving well and to ensure that they avoid the actions of companies which behave irresponsibly. I look forward to Parliament's report on socially irresponsible corporate behaviour so that we can look at the contrast in how we work.
(PL) Mr President, I am aware that the concept of corporate social responsibility is becoming an increasingly important part of the debate on globalisation, competitiveness and sustainable development. According to the definition of this concept, companies voluntarily take account of the social and economic impact of the activities they undertake.
In the framework of implementation of social responsibility on a voluntary basis, companies decide to go beyond the minimum legal requirements and commitments resulting from collective agreements, in order to respond to social and environmental needs. I should like to make it very clear, from the floor of this House, that it is precisely the voluntary basis of the action taken and of companies' response to the notion of social responsibility that is vital.
As corporate social responsibility is based mainly on decisions taken by companies on a voluntary basis, I believe that the imposition of any kind of additional duties and administrative requirements would most probably prove counterproductive. It would also be at variance with the principles of better legal regulation and with efforts to simplify and improve the functioning of the European Union. It was with this in mind that I tabled 10 amendments to the text presented by Mr Howitt, and I am pleased that the spirit of these amendments has been incorporated into the compromise text proposed by the rapporteur.
I should also like to take advantage of this opportunity to underline the importance of introducing methods for the exchange of good practice concerning implementation of the notion of corporate social responsibility. In practice this can be achieved in the framework of the European Alliance for Corporate Social Responsibility. From the floor of the House I would like to commend the European Commission on its commitment. The Commission recognises that the companies themselves are the main players on this stage, and has announced its support for this body, which represents a sound and open way of exchanging good practice between all types of companies be they large, small or medium-sized.
(EL) Mr President, I should like first of all to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Howitt, on his systematic work and his constructive proposals.
The concept of corporate social responsibility seems to be more topical than ever. On the one hand, the dramatic change in the climate, due in large part to the uncontrolled use and consumption of natural resources and, on the other hand, the worrying spread of poverty, in conjunction with the reversal of the demographic pyramid, appear to be the result of attempts to downgrade employment and overturn the social acquis. Nonetheless, if we want to flesh out the bones of this concept, at least three preconditions need to be met: firstly, the Commission needs to take serious account of the proposals tabled by Parliament. Secondly, it should be acknowledged that companies need to accept their responsibilities towards the environment, society and the workers which derive from their economic activity, without of course this being seen as a sacrifice on their part. Thirdly, priority should be given to supporting investments designed to promote workers' knowledge and the development of new technologies, especially those which are more environmentally friendly. Both these sectors should be seen as basic pillars of corporate social responsibility.
Finally, this is an excellent opportunity to prove that the competitiveness must not be at the workers' expense, but must go hand in glove with respect for environmental equilibria, the promotion of dignified working conditions and social progress in general.
Mr President, over the past seven years I have had the pleasure of debating CSR with Richard Howitt on and off for a considerable time. It has, of course, been a most enjoyable experience - as it says here! It has certainly been a challenge, but I am sure he would be the first to admit - and I see him chortling over there - that it has been a challenge for both of us. I would like to thank him for the way that he has risen to that challenge, because clearly we have both been approaching this issue from slightly different standpoints, although in our ways, like all the other speakers, we are equally wishing to champion the cause of CSR.
I should just like to take issue on two tiny points with which he opened his comments. Firstly, he said he was disappointed that the Commission report almost indicated that it was opting out. I disagree with that. I think its report was very positive and we should welcome it. Secondly, he said that he hoped that the Commission would help bring the NGOs back to the multi-stakeholder forum table. In fairness, it was neither the Commission nor the multi-stakeholders that encouraged them to leave. They themselves chose to leave. It is up to them whether they wish to come back or not. Some of them at least had a minority view - in a democracy that is perfectly permitted. However - if the interpreters can rise to this challenge - we should not allow the tail to wag the dog. It is up to the NGOs to return.
I will not comment further on his speech, nor, indeed, make other comments in detail about colleagues' speeches other than to say I am sure the President and Commissioners are aware that - with no disrespect to any of my colleagues including myself - sometimes our speeches are for different audiences because we have to impress constituents back home. There is nothing wrong with that; we are politicians and that is something we have to do. However, I would invite you particularly, rather than just listen to us talk, to read what we say, to read what we are voting upon because the text is very significant.
There are some aspects I still dislike about the text. I agree with Mrs Oviir from the ALDE Group in that I do not like the idea of an ombudsman, but it is an idea. There are a number of ideas that I do not particularly welcome, but they are ideas and all these ideas are generally worth serious consideration. However, the text is what is important. I particularly invite the Commission to think of the three reports: the original report that went to committee; the report that was amended and voted against by 15 members of the committee; and the final report as it is likely to emerge tomorrow. That report I believe will be very much on your side. If I may say so, Commissioners, I think you are a great double act. Tomorrow we will show we are a treble act and wish to follow your lead in advancing the cause of CSR.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, what seems clear first of all is that more and more companies see social and environmental responsibility as an opportunity, as an instrument for sustainable development, for growth and for creating jobs, and also as a good instrument for helping companies and workers to adapt better to the changes demanded by the globalised economy of the 21st century.
I would like to comment on two issues in particular. Firstly, that it is clear that companies are the main players and that we must also take account of other parties such as consumers and non-governmental organisations. Above all, however, I believe that we must take account of the central role of unions, and codes of conduct cannot replace the crucial role of unions and collective negotiation under any circumstances.
Secondly, it is clear that corporate social responsibility must be a factor that increases competitiveness, but behind the labels relating to corporate social responsibility there must be realities and not just mere propaganda. Otherwise, we will undermine them and consumers will not trust those labels and we will stop moving towards corporate social responsibility and its capacity to create more competitive companies.
Many companies are currently making decisive efforts towards corporate social responsibility and they naturally know that it offers added value, and I am sure that those who do it in a clear and fair way will not object to it being verified by means of objective data.
(HU) Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to welcome the report by my fellow Member Mr Howitt. The debate concerning corporate social responsibility is a very sensitive subject on which people are divided, since we would like to ensure a strong European social environment, while at the same time wishing to enhance the competitiveness of European companies. The current practice of corporate social responsibility, or CSR, is an excellent example of the fact that strengthening the social and environmental dimension does not necessarily mean a decline in companies' competitiveness.
We need to strengthen the European social model, but we must avoid introducing a mandatory model based on a single pattern. A better regulated voluntary model offers greater opportunities both to producers and to consumers, rather than new administrative burdens that are difficult to bear. If we reinforce voluntary CSR by defining minimum standards with which we can avoid excessive increase in expenditure on the part of smaller companies, then this will be able to increase their competitiveness, provided consumers are sufficiently informed about CSR-type production and business practices. We need to increase consumer awareness and information, as this creates a market for responsible production.
Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission is grateful for the constructive and frank spirit of this debate. I would like to stress once more that Mr Howitt's report contains numerous valuable suggestions that the Commission will be happy to take into account in the further development of its policies on CSR. This will bring us, together, a good way further ahead.
Businesses need a clear legal framework; they have to know what they have to do and what they must not do. If they do not, they cannot function on the market. Businesses have a social responsibility; that is why there are thousands of rules, at the European level and in the Member States, compelling companies to discharge their responsibility to society. All the legislation we have enacted - be it on the protection of consumers, health and safety at work, protection of the environment or social security benefits - is intended to compel social responsibility on the part of business and set standards that we believe absolutely have to be met. The intellectual problem we have with the debate we are having is that I, for one, find it difficult to imagine how we are supposed to fashion a legal framework for something that is not prescribed by law. The idea of creating a regulatory framework for CSR means that one would be enacting a law regulating how companies have to handle things that the law does not require them to handle. That is inherently contradictory, and the Commission really did want to put this debate behind it, and, for once, to see real progress being made; that is why, last year, we encouraged European businesses to get this Alliance for CSR up and running. As I told you, and as you can also read in the Commission's report that you have before you, this has already come up with some pretty remarkable ideas and initiatives.
There are two very important things - to which Mr Turmes referred - that I would like to discuss. The first is the Multi-Stakeholder Forum, in the holding of which the Commission was heavily involved, and which made some important proposals that the Commission is taking on board. There was very broad support for the Commission's stance. Some non-governmental organisations did not come on the grounds that their line differed from that taken by the Commission, and I find that a peculiar way of behaving in a democratic society - taking part in a discussion only if you are sure that everyone else is going to agree with you. I therefore expressed regret at the non-attendance of these non-governmental organisations, which were few in number, but we want to continue to engage in dialogue with them, and I have specifically asked them to rejoin us in this work in future.
As for the global dimension, which Mr Turmes also had something to say about, the Commission is wholeheartedly supportive. Before the end of this year, we will be staging a major conference on the subject of the international dimension of CSR, a topic that we have already broached in our dialogue with the other regions of the world, most notably with the developing economies such as China, India, Latin America and Africa, but which we are also discussing with the USA, the Japanese and other European partners, and it is a subject that we want to move forward at the global level.
Reference has been made in this debate to the existence of an ISO standard for corporate social responsibility. Such a thing does, indeed, exist, but it is a voluntary standard; for companies can decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it, and the good thing is that more and more European companies do, and also make use of it for marketing purposes, telling their customers - society at large - that 'we, X Ltd, act in accordance with this standard' and they also want to be judged on that basis, for they see it as useful in terms of their market success.
I would like - and I am also speaking on behalf of my fellow-Commissioner Mr Špidla when I say this - to offer your House our continued close and constructive cooperation on this matter, and will reiterate that we have, in Mr Howitt's report and in the debate, found many important suggestions, which the Commission will take into consideration as it continues to work on this.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.
Written statement (Rule 142)
in writing. - (IT) Business, or entrepreneurship, is the deciding factor for the development of people and society. Business has to consider products, organisation, marketing, design and production processes. The key factor in business, however, is its human capital, which must always be promoted and protected, and human capital is the result of education: education about safety, trust, creativity, the ability to learn, and a taste for what is useful and beautiful.
To become competitive in the marketplace, companies need to be able to make the most of these aspects and also to exercise strong social responsibility in caring not only about their product but above all about their work and their workers. If entrepreneurs exercise this responsibility of their own free will, it creates a virtuous circle among company, capital and work, helping them to compete effectively in the global marketplace.


4. Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (
Before the vote on paragraph 16:
Madam President, I would like to include, after 'climate change risk assessment', the words 'which does not harm trade'.