Thread by @KlaasEller

This excellent investigative report by @corporateeurope, @foeeurope & @bund_net traces the influence of @EU_Commission‘s (De-)’Regulatory Scrutiny Board‘ in weakening the proposed Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

Key take-aways: 🧵

(1/16)

corporateeurope.org/en/inside-job

(2/16) Corporate lobbying of the RSB left its fingerprint on final rules on (1.) companies covered; (2.) tiers of the supply chain covered; (3.) industry self-regulation; (4.) limited victim rights; (5.) weakening of directors’ duties & (6.) weak climate-related obligations.

(3/16) Mechanisms of modern lobbying: While in public perception, EU-level action was seen by most as progressive, business lobby groups saw an EU-wide harmonization as preferable to divergent national rules, especially where (weak) national legislation would serve as blueprint.

(4/16) Corporate reactions in EU public consultations were mixed: While many individual companies publicly expressed support for ambitious regulation and sought reputational gains, industry associations took the role of fierce opposition and defense of sectoral self-regulation.

(5/16) At the instigation of the Confederation of Danish Industry (@DanskIndustri), an informal network of business groups and civil servants from different EU MS ministries came together early to coordinate reactions to the EU consultation.

(6/16) @EU_Justice itself rather effectively restricted lobby exposure outside of the official consultation, turning down almost all meeting requests and leading lobbyists to consider new paths.

(7/16) In a move that ‘was to prove more successful than any other followed by the lobby groups’ (Report p. 17), lobbyists turned to the EU ‘Better Regulation’ agenda and its guardian, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB).

(8/16) ‘Better’ Regulation & the RSB offer no mere neutral ‘quality-check’, but come with an angle and an interest. Behind an inclusive language around ‘stakeholders’ & ‘consultations’, they are prone to market capture through corporate resource and technical expertise.

(9/16) Through its opinions on EU legislative proposal’s impact assessments, the RSB holds a de-facto veto power that has been particularly obstructive to ambitious policies around the EU #GreenDeal.

verfassungsblog.de/quantifying-be…

(10/16) The RSB operates as an unaccountable ‘little bubble’ (Report, p. 21), shielded by its internal procedures & the homogenous profiles of its 7 (unelected) members (backgrounds in economics and business admin), underrepresenting social and environmental perspectives.

(11/16) What is more, as @larawoltersEU, @HeidiHautala & @PDurandOfficiel had made public earlier, the RSB violated its own rules of procedure by meeting with business stakeholders and even manipulating the transparency register in the aftermath.

https://twitter.com/larawoltersEU/status/1486652656508719107?s=20&t=1MXMRVfj48nzuRtTHeCZ4g

(12/16) RSB’s first negative opinion (May 21) lamented

- a ‘vague problem description’,
- ‘too limited policy options’,
- ‘insufficient proportionality assessment’ and
- ‘insufficient integration of stakeholder views’,

all four voiced by business groups.

(13/16) The RSB’s negative opinion ‘emboldened the opponents in the business community’ (Report, p. 28) & initiated a major overhaul of the EU proposal by adding Commissioner @ThierryBreton to the file and subsequently multiplying lobby meetings.

Chart: Report, p. 29

(14/16) RSB’s second negative opinion (Nov 21), ‘even more damning than the first’ (Report, p. 32) focused on directors’ duties, SMEs, broader scientific basis for climate mitigation rules (sic!) and concerns for ‘competitiveness’. @DanskIndustri claimed credit for the opinion.

(15/16) Both RSB opinions were only published weeks after the release of the proposed Directive (on Feb 23) and following public pressure, also through awareness raised by many here on twitter. A first for me - seeing a tweet of mine cited!

(16/16) Overall, the Report reveals the subtleties and strategies of corporate lobbying on the proposed Sustainability Directive, using the RSB effectively as Trojan Horse of deregulation. This requires public exposure - and redress at the parliamentary stage.