Documents BUSINESSEUROPE 6 results

"This working paper looks at the views of managers responsible for European Works Councils (EWCs) within multinational companies on the operation of the institution. It also examines the policies of Business Europe on EWCs vis-à-vis the views of these managers.



The findings of structured interviews with fifty-six EWC managers focus on management; corporate restructuring; the question whether EWCs offer value for money; operational concerns; the impact of the 2009 Recast directive; and the question where do we go from here.



Finally the researchers draw the conclusions and recommendations for future European policies on European Works Councils."

"Platform work is non-standard work facilitated by online platforms which use digital technologies to 'intermediate' between individual suppliers (platform workers) and buyers of labour. Platform work has rapidly developed since it first emerged in the EU, though concerns have been raised about the working conditions of platform work and the risk of precariousness it entails. Platform work has, therefore, been identified as a policy priority by European policy-makers. This study presents a literature review that focuses on the challenges and risks of precariousness of platform work and explores possible pathways for EU action. The document was provided by the Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies at the request of the committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL). "

"This thesis investigated the influence imbalance between worker's and employer's interest in the EU policymaking. It is assumed that worker's interests are disadvantaged, and this study is therefore examining the consultation of social partners under article 154 TFEU that considers social policy and can be used as a most-likely case for worker's influence. The study is conducted by identifying conflicts between ETUC and BusinessEurope in their consultation replies and compare the different opinions with the Commission's legislative proposal to find out which organisation that succeeded in influencing the Commission within each conflict. The results from this shows that each consultation generated between 0 to 6 conflicts and that most of the conflicts were won by BusinessEurope. This strengthens the assumption that there is an influence imbalance in EU legislation that makes the employer's organisation BusinessEurope more influential than the trade unions ETUC"

"Transparency International EU (TI EU), the Brussels office of the global anti-corruption network, has released brand new research on the lobbying efforts of big tech since 2014. The new report, Deep pockets, open doors, focuses on Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft and their activities in Brussels, Paris, Dublin, and London.

“It is clear that tech giants devote significant resources to influencing European Union policy. For example, Google's in-house Brussels lobbying budget has increased by 360 per cent since 2014 and we continue to see big tech companies ranking among the lobbyists with the most high-level meetings with the European Commission.” said Raphael Kergueno, Policy Officer at Transparency International EU and lead author of the report.

Aside from high numbers of meetings, big tech firms also often make extensive use of professional consultancies and external lobbyists. TI EU's research found that 26 consultancies and law firms present on the EU Transparency Register receive between 3 million and nearly 8 million euros per year from the big five, which is not automatically included in their in-house total. The companies also spin their web through sector associations and think-tanks, with the five corporations studied declaring memberships of 66 organisations in this category.

However, patchy lobby transparency and ethics rules across the institutions make it impossible to paint a full picture of how any interest representatives really shape our legislation. Members of the European Parliament have declared 153 lobby meetings with the big five, but not all MEPs are required to publish meetings (only 48% of them have). The Council and permanent representations of Member States currently have no obligation to publish meetings. Commission meeting transparency rules only cover the most senior officials.

Toothless revolving door rules also jeopardise transparent policy making, with three of Facebook's five registered lobbyists working in the EU institutions until just before they joined the company.

“This research makes it blatantly clear that the current rules and bodies that supposedly ensure the integrity of our institutions and legislative processes are weak and ineffective. The EU desperately needs a truly independent ethics body common to all its institutions. This body must be capable of ensuring respect for the Union principles of transparency and accountability, meaning it should be able to initiate its own investigations and issue penalties when rules are breached.” concluded Vitor Teixeira, EU Political Integrity Coordinator at Transparency International EU.

The report also notes that lobbying of the Commission on tech issues is skewed heavily towards the corporate sector"