Thread by @lewis_crofts

Pressure on govts/companies to meet "sustainability goals" has created increasing friction with antitrust law, but @AutoriteitCM in NL moved today to address that. Changing assessment of individual harm (eg higher prices) against greater social good bit.ly/2ANeRug /1

Essentially, antitrust exemptions are tough things to get & so companies are scared of collaborating, even if it's to reduce emissions, make packaging smaller or collectively agree not to source wood from illegal logging sites. ACM says 2 things: ... /2

1) some agreements (eg raising labour standards from suppliers, stopping corruption or child labour) don't affect competition & so no antitrust assessment is needed. Welcome clarity there. /3

2) For agreements which do affect competition (e.g. to reduce emissions), ACM will no longer do traditional assessment where harm to consumers needs to be "fully compensated." Now, will look more broadly at overall benefit to society as a whole (e.g. cleaner air). /4

Head of ACM told me this morning that tools now exist to assess, e.g, harm caused by a tonne of CO2, so officials can be smarter in their assessments. This paper should/will trigger broader debate. @EU_Competition is aware of this & is reviewing rules on horizontal cooperation /5

Also, well worth reading a @Unilever & @CovingtonLLP paper on the topic. One of the most comprehensive things I've read on the topic @KevinCoates /6 unilever.com/Images/unileve…

Very clear that competition law needs to adapt and catch up with the prevailing politics of corporate behavior. If you have one government policy to support sustainability, other policies should work towards that same goal. /ends