Download Invitation to contribute to the public consultation for the Code for

D1830A
05.10.2012
Launched in 1960, the European Banking Federation is the voice of the European banking sector from the European Union and
European Free Trade Association countries. The EBF represents the interests of almost 5000 banks, large and small, wholesale
and retail, local and cross-border financial institutions. Together, these banks account for over 80% of the total assets and
deposits and some 80% of all bank loans in the EU only.
Invitation to contribute to the public consultation for the Code for Effective Open
Voluntarism: Good design principles for self- and co-regulation
and other multi - stakeholders actions
______________________________________________________________________________
As announced under the fifth action of the action plan in the Commission’s Communication on
Corporate Social Responsibility, the Commission has undertaken to seek to codify good practice
in various voluntary, self- and co-regulation processes in order to improve the framework for
achieving EU policy objectives. The prime goal of the fifth action is to encapsulate, in a very
short text, the core propositions that frame effective voluntary multi-stakeholder action.
In this process of consultation, the European Banking Federation (EBF) would like to thank the
Commission for its initiative and the recognition of the importance of self- and co-regulation.
The EBF would like to note that its response does not address the opportunity of establishing a
self- or co-regulation on a subject or its form; the choice between self regulation, co-regulation or
regulating an issue, will depend on a number of factors such as the aim sought, the
representativeness of the parties, the mutual spirit of partnership between the parties concerned
and, potentially the public authorities.
The various methods of (self/co-) regulation present advantages and limits. But this is not the
purpose of this paper. Here, it is more a question of commenting the principles of a good self/coregulation when the above methods have been chosen as the best way of responding to a specific
challenge.
The EBF wishes in this context to make a number of comments regarding the proposed code.
General comments
In line with the current definition of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the EBF considers
that CSR covers activities beyond legal obligations aimed at enhancing and fostering society
outside the scope of the core business of an enterprise. In most instances CSR activities take
place outside current EU policy initiatives. In order not to deter organizations and companies
from such activities the EBF prefers to explicitly limit the Code for Open Voluntarism to
activities other than specific CSR-activities.
Even in cases where companies voluntarily engage in activities that have a link to current EUpolicy, no obstacles to such actions should be erected. Any undesirable burden creates the risk of
limiting stakeholders’ initiatives outside the bounds of legally required behaviour. Therefore, the
EBF would welcome a clear reference to the avoidance of excessive administration/red tape.
EBF a.i.s.b.l
56, Avenue des Arts B-1000 Brussels
+32 (0)2 508 37 11 Phone
+32 (0)2 511 23 28 Fax
www.ebf-fbe.eu
Specific comments:
Legal compliance
Although the EBF agrees that any initiative should not purport to restrict competition, it queries
whether the requirement that “competition authorities should be consulted or involved to the
extent necessary”, is not excessive. The EBF understands that the requirement is to avoid any
restrictions on the competitor’s access to the same potential advantage, nevertheless would
appreciate receiving more information regarding their involvement and role. The EBF would like
to suggest the term ‘may’ instead of ‘should’ as more appropriate and queries whether the code
intends to create new ‘administrative’ requirements (i.e. systematic consultation of competition
authorities) for parties willing to commit themselves on self-regulatory initiatives. Also this
point underscores the necessity to exclude CSR activities from the code. No legal frameworks for
such activities (other than general legal rules) exist and therefore the concept of legal compliance
does not address projects under the CSR concept.
Reporting
The EBF considers it is important to leave to the stakeholders full autonomy outside legal
reporting obligations on if and what to report. Should a certain project contain an agreement with
other stakeholders or interested parties on making public certain outcomes or results (such as
performance indicators), the aim to share best practices should be left to the full discretion of the
stakeholders involved.
More fundamentally, the request to make public any reporting may depend on the scope and
objective of a self/co-regulation initiative. If general interest is one of the pursued objectives, one
may well imagine that public reporting is useful. Conversely, for initiatives with different
objectives, another may claim that reporting is only relevant for the stakeholders directly
involved.
Complaints
The EBF strongly believes there should not be a path of extra-judicial review of voluntary
activities leading to public “condemnation” or penalties imposed by bodies or committees that
may lack democratic legitimacy. Under the rule of law independent assessors could not finally
solve a conflict. Therefore, such a system should itself be based on a voluntary approach chosen
by the parties in conflict if they regard this as a fitting tool to solve their dispute. Since mediation
and other established methods do exist for those cases, the Code should refrain from establishing
a strict framework.
In conclusion, the EBF wishes to keep voluntary initiatives exactly what they are meant to be:
initiatives that play a crucial role in the community by achieving benefits for the larger number,
and that complement regulatory initiatives, by respecting the principle of proportionality. These
initiatives must answer a series of legal and ethical criteria, without however being hampered by
administrative requirements which would deter organizations or enterprises from launching them.
Contact Fanny Derouck-Tadros: [email protected]
2