Sustainability Agreements and Antitrust – Three Criteria to Distinguish Beneficial Cooperation from Greenwashing
By: Maurits Dolmans (Chilling Competition)
This summer, the Commission adopted “Fit for 55” proposals to deliver the Green Deal, and the Council and Parliament adopted a Climate Law. There have been calls for a reassessment of competition policy too. Indeed, DG Comp is considering whether to adopt a more permissive approach to sustainability agreements, in the context of the review of the Guidelines on Horizontal Agreements. Commissioner Vestager is about to decide.
When speaking early this year on this topic at the OECD Open Day on Sustainable Competition Policy, EC Chief Economist Pierre Regibeau put his finger on a sore spot. He asked, I hope rhetorically: “Can we allow sustainability deals if that means taxing the people who buy, to benefit those who do not buy?”
That question is of course exactly the wrong way around. Producers and consumers impose costs on society – including climate change, large scale pollution, and loss of biodiversity – that are not included in the monetary price consumers pay. This leads to overconsumption and a “tragedy of the commons”, the degrading of our environment, due to overuse. These supply- and demand-side market failures are hard to resolve – why should a supplier produce cleanly if that means higher costs and rivals taking market share; why should a consumer buy green at a higher price if the neighbours keep buying polluting goods? Eminent economist Sir Nicholas Stern said in 2007 that “climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen”. We all suffer from this collective action problem, including the consumers themselves.
The Chief Economist should have asked “Why should we allow producers and consumers to impose costs on those who do not consume?” Or “why should we prohibit agreements that could help reduce the social costs of climate change and pollution, if they may make the polluters pay for the damage they cause?”…
Featured News
Pfizer Settles Remaining Effexor XR Antitrust Claims for $25.5 Million
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
South Korean Regulator Approves LG Uplus and Kakao Mobility EV Charging Venture
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Dismisses Doctors’ Antitrust Suit Against Ohio Health System
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
Paramount CEO Bob Bakish Steps Down as Merger Inches Closer
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
EU Brands Apple’s iPadOS as Gatekeeper in Tech Crackdown
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI