A threat of “greenwashing” by competitors authorities?

Sustainability as a coverage precedence

It’s no information that sustainability is a vital subject of competitors coverage throughout the EU. There’s clear consensus that competitors regulation enforcement must be cautious to not hinder cooperation between corporations, even rivals, that facilitates the realisation of or progress in direction of reaching sustainability targets of local weather coverage (or past). Nonetheless, the extent to which Article 101(3) TFEU can be utilized as a authorized foundation for exempting restrictive sustainability agreements between rivals from the cartel prohibition continues to be a hotly debated subject between the European Fee and the nationwide competitors authorities inside the European Competitors Community.

Nonetheless, with the push for corporations (and public decision-makers) to make actual progress in direction of reaching sustainability targets comes a threat of ‘greenwashing’. Greenwashing is the phenomenon of corporations giving a misunderstanding of their environmental influence or advantages of their merchandise or conduct (like exaggerating the advantages or distorting the information). Greenwashing can include unsubstantiated claims or deceptive data. Client authorities warn in opposition to greenwashing and put the subject excessive on their agenda. For instance, the Dutch Authority for Shoppers and Markets, the ACM, revealed Pointers for sustainability claims and launched an investigation on sustainability claims within the power, clothes and dairy sectors), leading to commitments from retailers H&M and Decathlon to adapt their sustainability claims to keep away from deceptive statements.


Competitors regulation framework

Competitors authorities are additionally pushed to facilitate company initiatives – usually involving agreements or coordinated conduct between rivals – that contribute to extra sustainable strategies of manufacturing or distribution and thus to reaching sustainability targets.  Each the European Fee and nationwide competitors authorities are exploring alternatives of offering steerage to corporations on how you can overcome competitors regulation boundaries referring to cooperation with the goal of reaching sustainability targets. This growth can solely be strongly inspired as competitors regulation mustn’t (be perceived to) stand in the way in which of real sustainability initiatives between undertakings (see additionally our outlook articles for 2021 and 2022).

The Dutch ACM, which enforces each shopper regulation and competitors regulation in The Netherlands, is likely one of the main competitors authorities within the EU pushing for a extra versatile or lenient method to the appliance of Article 101(3) TFEU in its draft Pointers on sustainability agreements (see additionally our weblog right here) [1]. The ACM can also be main with regards to encouraging and offering steerage on sustainability cooperation in relation to competitors regulation (see additionally our weblog right here and right here).

In September 2021 the European Fee revealed a coverage transient Competitors Coverage in Help of Europe’s Inexperienced Ambition during which it mentioned the position of competitors regulation in relation to sustainability, adopted by its draft revised Horizontal Pointers in March 2022 with a full Chapter (9) dedicated to the appliance of Article 101 TFEU to sustainability agreements. Though the Fee doesn’t go as far within the software of Article 101(3) TFEU because the ACM is advocating (see additionally our weblog right here), it explicitly makes an attempt to facilitate cooperation with sustainability goals below its personal interpretation of Article 101(3) TFEU.


‘Greenwashing’ by authorities?

There appears to be a slight threat, nonetheless, that the eager makes an attempt of competitors authorities just like the ACM to facilitate sustainability initiatives of corporations could cause them to “greenwash” initiatives that don’t strictly want a extra lenient ‘competitors regulation sustainability evaluation’ as a way to be in compliance with and even out of scope of competitors regulation.

This threat lately manifested itself within the ACM’s casual steerage regarding three sustainability cooperation initiatives [2]. For, whereas the ACM bases its evaluation of those initiatives on its Pointers on sustainability agreements, evidently these initiatives might in all probability even have been selected utilizing the ‘classical’ competitors regulation framework. One could even query if these initiatives – regardless the justified exemption below Article 101 TFEU – can actually make a distinction by way of reaching sustainability targets and thus justify making use of the Pointers’ framework.

On the idea of ACM’s publication on the issues (however with out understanding the small print), we can’t assist however ponder whether reference to the Pointers on sustainability agreements was required to evaluate the exemption for these types of cooperation below Article 101 TFEU.


The primary casual opinion accommodates an evaluation of a collaboration between Shell and TotalEnergies for a joint initiative to retailer CO2 in empty gasoline fields within the North Sea, so-called CCS providers (carbon seize and storage). The agreements that had been made concern 20% of the capability of the pipeline to be constructed. The casual opinion doesn’t point out that the requesting events appealed to the Pointers, however the ACM applies them anyway.

We surprise if this ‘particular remedy’ below the Pointers was crucial in view of the truth that an exemption below 101(3) TFEU appears a probable end result: a brand new market is created, potential restrictions of competitors appear fairly restricted and the advantages (efficiencies of the cooperation and the fair proportion for customers) appear apparent. Primarily based on the issues relating the ‘indispensability’ criterion it’s even uncertain if both occasion might individually have established the CCS infrastructure. Opposite to ACM’s earlier (pre-sustainability focus) detrimental evaluation of the coal plant closure in 2013, the current evaluation doesn’t comprise any quantification of potential price will increase for shoppers nor of any alleged efficiencies.


The second evaluation shouldn’t be revealed as an off-the-cuff opinion, however solely in a press launch on ACM’s web site. On this press launch, the ACM takes a constructive stance concerning cooperation between varied smooth drink suppliers, together with Coca-Cola. These suppliers initiated to abolish the plastic deal with that comes on multipacks of sentimental drinks and water bottles. The ACM states that it believes that competitors shouldn’t be restricted by the settlement and that the settlement subsequently falls inside the scope of Chapter 4 of its Pointers on sustainability agreements (‘Sustainability agreements with out restrictions of competitors’).

We query nonetheless whether or not an initiative of omitting the plastic handles is actually a sustainable one – or at the least whether or not it should actually make a distinction in reaching the sustainability targets, on condition that the remaining packaging and the bottles themselves proceed to include plastic and the importance (and therefore environmental influence) of eradicating the handles appears fairly restricted. Additionally, one would suppose that utilizing much less packaging supplies represents a price saving that makes an settlement on the subject maybe not indispensable. Moreover, we consider that within the pre-sustainability focus the ACM in all probability wouldn’t have given casual steerage on one of these cooperation however would have referred the initiators to the self-assessment.


In a 3rd casual opinion referring to a proposed settlement to cut back using unlawful crop safety merchandise, the ACM concludes that the settlement, although contributing to sustainability and higher functioning of the Dutch floriculture market, shouldn’t be restrictive of competitors (i.e. exterior the scope of Article 101 TFEU). The target of the settlement is to keep away from ‘beneath authorized customary competitors’ and extra notably to fight commerce in unlawful plant safety merchandise and biocides.

Additionally, on this state of affairs, evidently the settlement – whereas in all probability contributing to sustainability targets – might actually have been cleared below Article 101 TFEU on the idea of self-assessment by the requesting affiliation and irrespective of the Pointers.


Concluding remarks

In our opinion, these examples replicate that authorities must be conscious of whether or not the ‘sustainability competitors regulation angle’ is appropriate and required for the evaluation of any type of cooperation that contributes to reaching sustainability targets. On the identical time, we discover {that a} little bit of “greenwashing” by the authorities may be absolved as a way to create extra authorized ‘consolation’ on discussing sustainability initiatives and to encourage cooperation between rivals that – particularly if not restrictive of competitors – contributes to reaching sustainability targets.

Competitors regulation doesn’t should and mustn’t stand in the way in which of discussing sustainability initiatives between rivals, even when competitors regulation compliance is at all times a degree of consideration. Regardless of these crucial issues on the need of invoking the Pointers on sustainability agreements, we will solely applaud the way in which during which the ACM is paving the way in which for discussions of this essential coverage subject.



[1] Upon finalisation of this text (6 September 2022), the ACM revealed three casual opinions and two press releases in relation to sector initiatives with a sustainability angle and during which it utilized its Pointers on sustainability agreements: Casual Opinion ACM 2 September 2022, reference: ACM/UITNZP/001508 (Backyard Retail Sector); Press launch ACM 26 July 2022 (Cooperation soft-drink suppliers); Casual Opinion ACM 27 June 2022, reference: ACM/UITNZP/001473 (Undertaking Aramis – Shell/TotalEnergies); Press launch ACM 28 February 2022 (Cooperation VEMW wind power); Casual Opinion ACM 24 February 2022, reference: ACM/UITNZP/001356 (Regional grid operators).

[2] Casual Opinion ACM 2 September 2022, reference: ACM/UITNZP/001508 (Backyard Retail Sector); Press launch ACM 26 July 2022 (Cooperation soft-drink suppliers); Casual Opinion ACM 27 June 2022, reference: ACM/UITNZP/001473 (Undertaking Aramis – Shell/TotalEnergies).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.