29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/1

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EESC’s recommendations for a solid reform of the European Semester

(own-initiative opinion)

(2023/C 228/01)

Rapporteurs:

Gonçalo LOBO XAVIER

Javier DOZ ORRIT

Luca JAHIER

Plenary Assembly decision	27.10.2022
Legal basis	Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure
	Own-initiative opinion
Section responsible	Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion
Adopted in section	18.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	226/2/6

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Semester, despite its weaknesses, has played an important role in coordinating national economic policies within the EU. However, its procedures have not allowed for the satisfactory involvement of citizens and national political, economic and social actors in the Member States (MS) in its processes and recommendations. The level of participation of organised civil society (OCS) in the Semester is insufficient and of low quality in a majority of MS. Although there has been some improvement in the consultation on the drafting of national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs), this has not been consolidated and, in some countries, there have been recent setbacks, for political reasons, in commitments to further support this participation.

1.2.

The European Commission’s (EC) communication setting out orientations for a reviewed EU economic governance framework (1), which the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) supports (2), establishes a more flexible and differentiated fiscal policy framework that will require negotiations and agreements between the EU institutions and the MS. For these to be successful, national ownership of the process and of the commitments made is crucial. To achieve this, a reform of the procedures and timetables of the ESis necessary.

1.3.

The EESC considers that ownership by the MS is only possible with the concrete and structural involvement of political, economic and social actors in the European Semester process. The EESC believes that the involvement of social partners and civil society organisations (CSOs) must become one of the pillars of this revised Semester, as well as that of national parliaments and local and regional authorities. The competences of the European Parliament (EP) should be increased to the level of being able to have more co-decision rights on economic policy guidelines and proposals of an European nature.

1.4.

The EESC proposes reforming the European Semester in order to strengthen its transparency and democracy, the involvement of organised civil society and the effectiveness of its operation, in link with the objectives of economic growth and quality employment, social cohesion and convergence between MS, and of accelerating the green and digital transitions. The existing systems of indicators must be reviewed, complemented and made consistent with each other, thus helping to improve evaluation procedures.

1.5.

The EESC believes that the main instruments of the European Semester, in particular the Country-Specific Recommendations (CSRs), should cover a period of three years, with annual evaluations and reviews. This proposal is consistent with the EC’s communication on a reviewed EU economic governance framework and will facilitate the processes of national ownership and organised civil society participation.

1.6.

It is compliance with the CSRs that makes it possible to assess the validity and effectiveness of the European Semester. Therefore, the EESC believes that the most appropriate incentive is to link their implementation to the EU budget and to receive part of the funds from it, along the lines of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).

1.7.

The EESC proposes that the social partners and civil society organisations be involved through a structured formal consultation procedure, both at European and national level, covering both the drafting and decision-making phases, and the implementation, monitoring and evaluation phases. The procedure should take place in a specific body, or in a pre-existing one to which such functions are legally attributed. Existing national economic and social councils should also play a relevant role in this process.

1.8.

The EESC believes that the principles and general characteristics of structured and permanent involvement of organised civil society in the various stages of the European Semester should be defined in an EU regulation, while respecting the fact that it is up to national legislation to further specify the procedures and bodies in which this consultation is carried out, and complying with criteria of openness, transparency and representativeness.

1.9.

In the EESC’s view, this regulation should establish basic criteria and principles concerning, inter alia, the following issues: timetables (linked to those of the RRF and the European Semester), the formality of meetings and public access to documentation in due time and form, minutes, public communication of proposals and government responses and a roadmap for the implementation of agreements.

1.10.

The EESC believes that the debate on the EU’s fiscal capacity and own resources needs to be deepened. In the Committee’s view, the geopolitical, economic, social and environmental challenges facing the EU in the coming years will require the financing of European common goods.

2. Introduction

2.1.

The purpose of this opinion is to encourage reflection and the formulation of proposals for a solid reform of European Semester procedures in order to make EU economic governance more transparent, democratic and effective and to involve OCS more effectively.

2.2.

Our analysis and proposals take into account the contents of EU economic governance, the EC’s communication setting out orientations for a reviewed EU economic governance framework, as well as the EESC opinion on this communication and the Committee resolutions on the involvement of OCS in the development and implementation of national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) (2021 and 2022) (3).

2.3.

As with the preparation of the above-mentioned resolutions, we carried out a broad consultation of OCS representatives, through the national delegations of the European Semester Group (composed of three members from each country — one per group). This consultation took the form of a questionnaire and seven country visits (round tables). The results of the consultation are set out in the annex (4) and are summarised in point 5 of the opinion.

3. Background

3.1.

After the 2008 crisis, the European Semester was introduced as an instrument of EU economic governance. Initially focusing on the financial stability of MS, it has over time integrated employment and social issues in addition to economic and budgetary policies. Now, it is a semi-annual cycle of economic, employment, social and fiscal policy coordination: MS align their budgets and economic policies with the objectives and rules agreed at EU level. Since its introduction in 2011, it has become a well-established forum for discussing EU countries’ fiscal, economic and employment policy challenges under this common annual timeline. Greater coordination was needed between MS in light of the economic and social repercussions of the pandemic in 2020 and the war triggered by the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. Therefore, in 2021, the Semester was adapted to take into account the creation of the RRF. The implementation of national RRPs now drives their reform and investment agenda for the years ahead. With its broader scope and multilateral surveillance, the Semester usefully complements the implementation of the national RRPs.

3.2.

According to Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation (5), to prepare and implement the national RRPs should provide a summary of the consultation process, conducted in accordance with the national legal framework and a brief explanation of how the input of the stakeholders is reflected in the RRP. These stakeholders include local and regional authorities, social partners, civil society organisations, youth organisations and others. However, as highlighted by the EESC in its resolution adopted in May 2022, OCS’s involvement has so far been generally perceived as unsatisfactory, even bearing in mind the natural differences between countries in the existing consultation processes.

3.3.

The four main objectives of the European Semester are: (1) to prevent excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the EU; (2) to ensure sound sustainable public finance (Stability and Growth Pact); (3) to support structural reforms aimed at fostering economic growth, employment and social policies (Europe 2020, Green Deal, Sustainable Development Goals, European Pillar of Social Rights); and (4) to boost investments. Following the COVID-19 crisis and the adoption of NextGenerationEU, the objective is now also to monitor the national RRPs.

3.4.

In November 2022, the EC published a communication setting out orientations for a reformed EU economic governance framework (6), proposing to maintain the reference values of the SGP (3 % of GDP deficit and 60 % debt-to-GDP ratio) and to establish procedures for debt reduction differentiated by country and negotiated with their governments (with national medium-term fiscal path plans). This revised framework would be simpler, more transparent and effective, with greater national ownership and better enforcement. Under this revised architecture, the fiscal plans of the most indebted MS would be established for a period of four years (with a possible extension of three additional years), while following a specific and agreed investment and reform agenda, subject to annual compliance monitoring. This proposal reflects the ‘NextGenerationEU spirit’, as it has been referred to. The ECOFIN Council conclusions of 14 March 2023 (7) contain many areas of convergence of views between MS and areas where further work on a reviewed framework is needed. They provide the political guidance for the preparation of the relevant legislative proposals by the European Commission. In particular, the Council stated that Member States should systematically involve social partners, civil society and other relevant stakeholders in a timely and meaningful manner at all stages of the European Semester and policy-making cycle, as this is key for the success of the economic, employment and social policy coordination and implementation. This was also endorsed by the European Council on 23 March.

3.5.

Through this coordination instrument, the EESC has continuously sought to boost OCS involvement in decisions that may affect it. The purpose of this has been to strengthen civil society’s democratic legitimacy and confidence in the EU institutions and to ensure a more effective implementation of the aforementioned national plans and agendas. This consultation was therefore conducted to identify the recommendations of OCS in the MS, strengthening their role in these processes. The consultation took into account the ongoing changes relating to the European Semester (the implementation of the RRF, the integration of the REPowerEU chapter and the revision of the EU economic governance framework).

4. Methodology used for this consultation

4.1.

The data and information required for this report were collected between December 2022 and March 2023. In total, 23 national contributions (responses to the questionnaire and/or the holding of a round table) were received (8). Consultations took place on the basis of members’ own knowledge and involved social partners and CSOs. In some countries, national economic and social councils or equivalent bodies were involved, and in others, government representatives were also consulted.

4.2.

This opinion also draws on external sources, such as think tank publications, comparative research studies and national debates. In addition, the questionnaire was sent out to a few European CSOs, parts of the EESC Liaison Group and other representatives of the three groups of the EESC.

5. Observations on the results of the consultation

Section I: Follow-up to our previous work on the national RRPs

5.1. Question 1 — State of play of the involvement of OCS in the implementation of the RRP

In general, there have been no major changes. The main obstacles are the lack of political will of governments, the absence of a systematic and uniform approach to monitoring, and the lack of permanent and formal procedures and structures for information and dialogue. OCS proposes the creation of a central platform on the Semester that would include all national information, the creation of standardised consultation and monitoring mechanisms with a more active role for national economic and social councils (and equivalent bodies).

Section II: OCS views on the European Semester

Question 2 — OCS consultation in the framework of the European Semester.

The consultation of OCS in the context of the Semester is generally considered insufficient and/or ineffective, a formality with a low rate of acceptance of its proposals. National stakeholders interviewed propose: a defined and regular consultation cycle, with better access to documentation and greater transparency, publication of the results, a timetable consistent with the Semester cycle, and visibility of the process to the public.

5.2. Question 3 — Effectiveness and legitimacy of the European Semester as a tool for economic and fiscal policy coordination

A majority of OCS’s representatives value positively the role of the European Semester in the coordination of economic and employment policies, although the shortcomings expressed prevent it from having greater effectiveness and legitimacy, they consider that the interactivity of the process is hampered by the administrative burden and the lack of a structured and uniform consultation method. They also criticise the low rate of adoption of the CSRs and the poor integration of the European Pillar of Social Rights and social indicators in the evaluation mechanisms. A majority proposes that the reform of the Semester should prioritise medium and long-term objectives.

5.3. Question 4 — Country-Specific Recommendations

A majority of respondents believe that CSRs are consistent with medium and long-term challenges, although they are too general or focused on fiscal sustainability, neglecting issues such as health, education and social inclusion, and only partially reflect the interests of social partners and CSOs. Better compliance with CSRs requires better alignment with government and citizens’ priorities, more transparent and participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and a more effective system of incentives and sanctions.

5.4. Question 5 — Pillar(s) of the European Semester to be strengthened as a priority

The priority of structural reforms and growth has been reinforced by the pandemic. Structural reforms promote the resilience of the economy and require investment, the second priority of the European Semester. Investments should support economic development and social cohesion. The strengthening of the social dialogue and the participation of OCS in the Semester must be guaranteed by European legislative act. The essential sustainability of public finances must not be opposed to investments that promote upward economic and social convergence.

5.5. Question 7 — European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs)

The majority of respondents consider that there is a need to strengthen the link between ESIFs and the implementation of CSRs, and political and social dialogues and synergies between national bodies in charge of managing the European Semester and ESIFs to deliver a roadmap for the implementation of CSRs. Greater integration and convergence of national objectives, policies and resources, better linkage of funds with European policies and better use of resources to support the development of less favoured regions should be promoted.

Section III: OCS views on European economic governance

5.6. Question 6 — Aspects to be strengthened to improve the way European economic governance is implemented

Transparency and accountability are seen as the most important elements to improve the way European economic governance is implemented. It is important to ensure that all stakeholders have access to information on economic policy recommendations and their implementation, to create clear macroeconomic indicators, thresholds and targets to make the EU economic governance framework and the European Semester more detailed, focused and tangible. Next comes the view that the involvement of the European Parliament (EP), national parliaments, social partners and CSOs should be strengthened to ensure that economic policies reflect the needs and concerns of a wide range of stakeholders.

6. General Remarks

The review of the EU economic governance framework

6.1.

The EESC supports the EC’s proposals for reform of economic governance (9) and calls for their legislative instruments to be adopted swiftly so that they can enter into force in 2024, when the general escape clause of the SGP will also be lifted.

6.2.

The changes contained in the EC’s communication, in particular those aimed at reducing public debt levels in the MS under the principles of differentiation and flexibility (10), will necessarily entail changes to the European Semester procedures. The EESC believes that greater involvement of national political, economic and social players must also be an inevitable consequence in order to safeguard sound democratic representation of the society as a whole. The diverse views and interests, which are particularly represented by social partners and civil society organisations, should be duly considered in this important area of economic policy. The EC stresses the importance of national ownership. In this context, it is essential for national medium-term fiscal path plans to build on and strengthen what has been done in the context of the recovery and resilience plans, i.e. by including an article similar to Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation, creating an obligation for greater scrutiny of the way in which MS consult and incorporate the demands of OCS in the plans. It is crucial to have the views of the social partners and civil society organisations on the reforms and investments proposed in these plans and their implementation.

6.3.

The EC has just published a communication titled A Green Deal Industrial Plan for the Net-Zero Age (11). It brings together the need to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Green Deal, the implementation of the concept of strategic European industrial autonomy and measures to strengthen the competitiveness of European green industry in the face of the consequences of the Inflation Reduction Act promoted by the US government. One of the proposals of the Green Deal industrial plan is the creation of a European Sovereignty Fund, in the context of the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, to invest in the most innovative technologies in the field of the green and digital transitions ‘thus safeguarding cohesion and the single market against the risks caused by the unequal availability of state aid’ (12).

6.4.

The political and academic debate on the economic governance of the EU includes issues such as building a permanent central EU fiscal capacity and the level and kind of own resources the EU should have. It is not the purpose of this opinion to comment on these issues. The EESC believes that a deep reflection on these issues and on models for further integration of monetary, fiscal and budgetary policies should be urgently carried out by the EU institutions. However, we believe that the Committee speaks for the majority of European organised civil society when it states that finding common European solutions and building common European goods is essential to meet the geopolitical, economic, environmental and social challenges facing the EU and its Member States and to successfully implement the green and digital transformations leading to a more productive, competitive, and environmentally and socially sustainable economic model. In the EESC’s view, closing the technological gap with the USA and China and strengthening value chains requires a common European industrial policy. The strategic autonomy called for by the European institutions, in areas ranging from foreign and defence policy to industrial, technological, trade, health, skills and research and development policies, requires common European solutions and common European goods. We need more than national solutions based on the fiscal capacity of each MS, which could seriously affect the proper functioning of one of the best achievements of the EU: the single market.

6.5.

The EESC believes that in order to finance European common goods properly, we must start by working towards a proper, efficient and effective use of existing financial resources, making the most of all the resources available in the public and public-private investment and financing instruments at the EU’s disposal. To this end, the EESC calls for maximum flexibility in the implementation of programmes and in the synergies and transfer of funds between them, alongside the application of rigorous evaluation and monitoring systems. The participation of civil society can make this process more transparent and effective.

6.6.

Notwithstanding the above, the scale of investment needs, in terms of common goods and support for the investment to be made by the MS, will require additional funding. In addition, the right conditions must also be created to secure the appropriate private investment and ensure the most appropriate regulatory framework for the long term. This was the view expressed by the EESC in the above-mentioned resolution (2022) on the national RRPs, linked to achieving the objectives of the Green Deal and accelerating the energy transition. We must be aware that a necessary condition for progress in this direction is first and foremost the successful implementation of the national RRPs.

6.7.

The EESC believes that good economic and budgetary governance needs to resolve the issue of the EU’s own revenue system as soon as possible, fulfilling the commitments set out in the MFF 2021-2027 and NextGenerationEU and laying the foundations for strengthening the European budget in the long term.

The European Semester and its procedures

6.8.

The European Semester, despite its shortcomings, has played an important role in coordinating national economic policies. However, its procedures do not allow sufficiently clear and regular involvement of citizens and national political, economic and social actors in the MS in its processes and recommendations. During the Great Recession of this century, the Semester was the transmission channel for clearly pro-cyclical policies, derived of course from the political economy principles according to which it was managed. In the very different response the European institutions gave to the COVID-19 crisis, the procedures of the RRF Regulation have replaced those of the Semester. With the positive incentive of its grants and loans, it has shaped, through the national RRPs, a certain model of indicative planning for investments and structural reforms. When the RRF expires, it will not be possible to return to the previous Semester model. Hence the need for the reform which the EESC is proposing.

6.9.

The problems that organised civil society has identified in the functioning of the European Semester and the RRF naturally vary in nature and intensity in the MS. However, most criticised the following aspects in particular:

—	communication with stakeholders and society is not of sufficient quality and transparency;

—	the participation of social partners and OCS rarely reaches a level of quality that allows their usefulness to be recognised;

—	the narrow timeframes for consultation of OCS within the framework of the Semester make it difficult both to involve all national political, economic and social actors and to comply with the guidelines included in the National Reform Plans and Country-Specific Recommendations;

—	In many cases the National Reform Plans and Country-Specific Recommendations are not sufficiently well structured in their objectives and reform proposals and their social content is inadequate;

—	The level of compliance with the Country-Specific Recommendations is deficient in a number of countries and the sanctions mechanism has proved to be ineffective.

6.10.

The RRF procedures have improved the situation in some respects. Although we are still on the verge of carrying out the mid-term evaluation (13), the consultations carried out for the two abovementioned EESC resolutions and for this opinion have shown a significant level of compliance with the required reforms. This is undoubtedly linked to the positive incentive provided by the receipt of RRF funds. However, the level of implementation of investments is lagging behind. The level of participation of OCS improved in the early stages of implementation of the national RRPs compared to that achieved in the preparation phase and compared to the usual Semester level. However, no improvement was seen in 2022 and serious setbacks have been detected in some countries, due to political changes.

6.11.

A reform of the economic governance framework, as proposed by the EC, clearly calls for an adaptation of the Semester. The revised common fiscal policy framework will offer a more flexible and differentiated framework involving negotiations and agreements between the EU institutions and the MS. It will entail changes in the timetables and procedures of the Semester. In order for it to remain effective and successful, it will have to facilitate national ownership of the process and of the commitments made, which can only be achieved with a broader involvement of political, economic and social actors in the process. For the EESC, the involvement of social partners and civil society organisations must therefore be one of the pillars of the revised Semester. The involvement of national parliaments and local and regional authorities is also essential.

6.12.

The EESC has already called for European legislative act to regulate the involvement of the social partners and civil society organisations in the Semester. Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation could be seen as an embryo of the rule the EESC is calling for. We propose that it should be a regulation laying down the basic principles and characteristics of consultations with civil society organisations. This way, the regulation would respect national traditions and procedures for social participation, while requiring it to be carried out in accordance with the basic principles and characteristics laid down in the European regulation.

6.13.

The EC has announced the forthcoming publication of a communication on strengthening social dialogue and a recommendation on the role of social dialogue at national level. The EESC believes that, should this initiative result in the enactment of legislation, this should be complementary to the regulation the Committee is calling for.

7. Proposals for a reform of the European Semester

7.1.

The EESC proposes reforming the European Semester in order to strengthen the following principles, values and trends: transparency, democracy, involvement of the social partners and civil society organisations, efficiency in its operation and for the growth of economies and quality employment, contribution to social cohesion and convergence between the MS, and completion of the green and digital transitions of the EU economy.

7.2.

To this end, the existing indicator systems — economic and employment, social and environmental — must be renewed, supplemented and made consistent with each other, so as to strengthen the evaluation procedures, which should also involve the social partners and civil society organisations.

7.3.

The EESC advocates a European Semester that always takes into account the social dimension of economic decisions when coordinating EU economies and formulating proposals to boost their sustainable growth. The measures promoted by the Semester must give priority both to innovation capacity and productivity growth and to the implementation of just transitions in the green and digital transformations of the European economy and the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. This is the fruitful balance that has been called the ‘EU Competitive sustainability’, as defined in the last two Annual Sustainable Growth Survey opinions, which the EESC has fully supported.

7.4.

The EESC believes that the main instruments of the European Semester — Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy, National Reform Plans and CSRs — should have a duration of three years, with annual evaluations and reviews. This would also allow for a better process of participation of political, economic and social actors, increase national ownership and foster better implementation of these instruments.

7.5.

Compliance with CSRs in the medium-term perspective which the EESC is advocating will help to assess the validity and effectiveness of the Semester. The consultation carried out in the context of this opinion identified, in particular, the opinions of organised civil society on the value of sanctions for non-compliance and on the most effective types of sanctions. The EESC believes that the most appropriate approach is to provide incentives for compliance in order to meet national commitments by linking them to the EU budget and the receipt of certain funds by MS, along the lines of the RRF model. For these commitments to be balanced and coherent with all the pillars of economic governance, it is essential that the process of national ownership be democratic and involve political and social actors.

7.6.

A more democratic Semester means involving European and national democratic political bodies in its procedures and, in some cases, in its decisions. We refer to the EP and national parliaments as well as local and regional political institutions. It is not the intention of this opinion to propose specific formulas or competences. However, it should be pointed out that the process of national ownership of the Semester’s recommendations and measures, which is so necessary for their effectiveness, requires these national institutions to play an important role both in drawing up plans and recommendations and in their evaluation. Similarly, the competences of the EP should be increased to the point where it has the capacity to co-decide on broad economic policy guidelines and proposals of a European nature.

7.7.

The EESC proposes the involvement of social partners and representative civil society organisations through a structured formal consultation procedure at both European and national level. Participation should take place both at the stage of drafting guidelines, recommendations and measures and at the implementation and evaluation stages. There should be a specific, possibly pre-existing, body that is formally and legally tasked with the a European Semester consultation and with involving civil society in the evaluation of the Semester. National economic and social councils could have a relevant role in the consultation and evaluation of the Semester in many countries. However, this is something that remains within the remit of individual countries, according to the traditions and legislation of each MS. Individual countries also currently decide whether social partners and civil society organisations are involved through the same procedure and body or through distinct processes.

7.8.

The EESC believes that the involvement of the social partners and CSOs in the various stages of the European Semester should be established by means of an EU regulation setting out the values, principles and main characteristics to be respected, leaving it to national legislation to specify the procedures and bodies responsible for implementing them. In the EESC’s view, the main requirements for an effective formal consultation process at national level that should be included in such a regulation are as follows:

—	The process must be permanent and structured and the specifications should be governed by national legislation; for those MS that already have such legislation in place, the legislation should be reviewed and updated in accordance with the provisions of the EU regulation.

—

The process should not be a one-off, limited to a specific period or year, but should be based on an appropriate permanent mechanism of consultation and exchange, covering all the different stages, with adequate structures and methods. Regular reports on the consultation process should be published annually, transmitted to the EC and the national parliaments and made available to OCS and the general public in each MS.

—

The procedures must meet the criteria of openness, transparency and representativeness. Open access to information should cover all documents and statistics relating to the RRF and the Semester, including key data on investment projects and the results of the economic, social and environmental scoreboards. The use of web portals bringing them together in an appropriately structured way should be extended to all MS.

—

The type of body, or bodies, through which the participatory process will be carried out must be specified by each MS, along with the characteristics they should have to ensure the representativeness of their members and the non-interference of politics in their appointment.Formal consultation of OCS should take place both in the drafting phase of the key documents of the Semester — the Annual Sustainable Growth Survey, the Joint Employment Report and the employment guidelines, the national Reform Programmes, Country-Specific Recommendations, etc. — and in the implementation and evaluation phases. The involvement of OCS should also be extended to the reform processes arising from the CSRs and the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure, or the revised EU economic governance model mechanism.

—	The timetables for the consultation process should be sufficiently homogeneous at EU level to allow convergence on a common process and ensure consistency with those already in place and those adapted to the integration of the RRF into the Semester.

—

The meetings will be convened in due time and form, and the necessary documents and information will be sent to the convened social partners and civil society organisations, allowing sufficient time for them to be studied by representatives of OCS. Minutes will be taken at the meetings and will include the proposals made by representatives of OCS.

—

National governments and the EC should respond in a timely manner to the proposals of the social partners and civil society organisations, incorporating the proposals and reasoned responses into the working documents of the Semester, in its different phases. A roadmap for the implementation of proposals that have been accepted should also be included.

—	Participation of OCS through delegates from its representative organisations and through formal structured consultations can be complemented by online, open or semi-open consultations, but never replaced.

7.9.

The EESC believes that similar criteria should be applied to the social dialogue and civil society dialogue procedures and the bodies that support them at the European level. Obviously, some adaptations would need to be made due to differences in scope, content and timetables.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) COM(2022) 583 final, Communication on orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework.

(2) EESC opinion on Communication on orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework (OJ C 146, 27.4.2023, p. 53).

(3) EESC Resolutions on Involvement of Organised Civil Society in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — What works and what does not?, adopted in February 2021 (OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p. 1) and on Involvement of Organised Civil Society in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — How can we improve it?, adopted in May 2022 (OJ C 323, 26.8.2022, p. 1).

(4) Annex to the own-initiative opinion on The EESC's recommendations for a solid reform of the European Semester (europa.eu).

(5) Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ L 57, 18.02.2021, p. 17).

(6) COM(2022) 583 final.

(7) European Semester 2023 — Synthesis report of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union (20.3.2023).

(8) AT, BE, BG, CZ, IE, IT, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, CY, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, SE and DK.

(9) EESC opinion on Communication on orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework (OJ C 146, 27.04.2023, p. 53).

(10) In particular the EESC outlined a proposal for this flexibility in points 3.6 and 3.7 of the above-mentioned opinion.

(11) COM(2023) 62 final.

(12) Speaking at the EESC plenary session on 24.1.2023, European Commission Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager reported that of the EUR 677 billion that Member States had allocated to companies since the start of the pandemic, Germany accounted for 50 % and France for 25 %.

(13) EESC evaluation report on Mid-term evaluation of the RRF (to be adopted in September 2023).

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/10

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the right to a healthy environment in the European Union, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine

(own-initiative opinion)

(2023/C 228/02)

Rapporteur:

Ozlem YILDIRIM

Plenary Assembly decision	27.10.2022
Legal basis	Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure
	Own-initiative opinion
Section responsible	Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	13.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	162/1/1

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

On 23 June 2022, Ukraine became an EU candidate country. When Ukraine joins the EU, it will be the EU’s largest or second-largest Member State in terms of territory. Ukraine’s large territory boasts diverse ecosystems; indeed, according to the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ukraine covers 6 % of Europe’s territory but hosts 35 % of its biodiversity.

1.2.

The environmental damage caused by the war includes ecosystem degradation, air and water pollution, and contamination of arable and pasture fields. According to reports, since the war began, 200 000 hectares of forest have been affected by fires, 680 000 tonnes of fossil fuels have gone up in flames, and 180 000 cubic metres of soil have been contaminated by munitions. The war has degraded protected areas and destroyed water treatment plants. Over 100 forest fires have been triggered by the conflict, releasing 33 million tonnes of CO2.

1.3.

Russia’s actions appear to amount to ecocide, based on a definition proposed by legal experts and published in June 2021. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has called for ‘ecocide’, as defined by the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide, to be codified as a criminal offence under EU law. The recognition of the crime of ecocide in the revised EU Environmental Crime Directive will lead to developments in legislation beyond the EU, in particular in the International Criminal Court, which may aid in bringing a degree of accountability for Russia, reflecting the environmental and ecological harm caused.

The EESC:

1.4.

highlights the urgent need to improve environmental protection for fundamental rights in the EU and beyond, which has been exacerbated by the environment damage caused by the war in Ukraine, including damage to human physical and mental health, ecosystem degradation, air and water pollution, and contamination of arable and pasture fields, directly threatening agricultural production and exposing the fragility of global food security;

1.5.

draws attention to the environmental and social impact of Russia’s invasion and the importance of and need for support in documenting, mapping and measuring those consequences, pursuing legal protection of the environment, ensuring accountability, and laying the groundwork for a green and sustainable post-war recovery and helping to assess financial needs when reallocating funds for the green recovery;

1.6.

calls on the Commission and the Council to take steps to identify the adverse environmental impacts of Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine and their human rights implications. The Commission and the Council must support civil society’s efforts to document environmental damage, including environmental crimes, committed by Russia, and support civil society’s role in shaping the rebuilding of Ukraine;

1.7.

urges that the EU must help protect Ukraine’s environment and repair the environmental damage caused by the war. The EESC maintains that all reconstruction efforts will be carried out in compliance with international ILO standards and the principles of social conditionality;

1.8.

stresses that human health and the quality of the environment cannot be separated — the health of ecosystems, animals and people are interconnected — and that the EU must safeguard this right. Environmental deterioration is the primary cause of ill health. Noise pollution, for example, results in 12 000 deaths per year. The interconnectedness of environmental and human health is also particularly apparent in the area of food security;

1.9.

calls on the Commission and the Council to strengthen food and agricultural inspection methods when entering the single market, with specific attention to detecting environmental pollution induced by the war in Ukraine in order to guarantee the health of all European citizens and our environment;

1.10.

stresses that the right to a healthy environment is vital to the social and economic well-being of people in Europe and worldwide. It is estimated that some 40 % of jobs globally depend on a healthy climate and ecosystem. In the light of the international legal framework and this stark reality, it is not surprising that numerous pieces of EU legislation have been adopted to give effect to the EU’s obligation to ensure respect for the right to a healthy environment;

1.11.

encourages all Members States and European institutions to deepen their efforts to improve the effectiveness of existing legal tools, as effectiveness in practice is often lacking. The many examples of litigation challenging failures by Member States or the EU itself in areas such as clean air, climate, fishing, or water show the extent to which public authorities are failing to ensure respect for this right.

2. General comments

2.1. Right to a healthy environment in the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine and Ukraine’s accession to the EU

2.1.1.

On 16 March 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe expelled Russia with immediate effect (1). Thus, while the EU was in the midst of negotiating its accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), on 16 September 2022 Russia ceased to be bound by it. This has dramatically reduced the coverage of human rights protection across the European continent. At the time of the invasion, however, and until 16 September 2022, Russia was bound by the Convention, and, despite Russia’s further withdrawal from international institutions, the country was, and remains, subject to a wide range of international obligations. These concern not only human rights (2) but also the environment: the International Framework Convention on Climate Change (3) and the Convention on Biodiversity are among those that Russia has flouted in its aggression.

2.1.2.

It is vital to ensure that human rights and the environment are protected in the rest of Europe — not only in the 27 Member States of the EU, where human rights protection will be reinforced by the EU’s accession to the Convention, but also in the remaining 19 Member States of the Council of Europe, including Ukraine.

2.1.3.

This is all the more important given that, on 23 June 2022, Ukraine became an EU candidate country. When Ukraine joins the EU, it will be the EU’s largest or second-largest Member State in terms of territory (4). Ukraine’s large territory boasts diverse ecosystems; indeed, according to the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (5), Ukraine covers 6 % of Europe’s territory but hosts 35 % of its biodiversity. Additionally, the country’s farmland — crucial to global food supplies — and its extensive fossil fuel infrastructure — on which certain neighbouring Member States are particularly dependent for energy supplies — have both come under immense pressure over the past year.

2.1.4.

Russia’s actions appear to amount to ecocide, based on a definition proposed by legal experts and published in June 2021 (6). Since 2001, the Ukrainian criminal code (7) has included the crime of ecocide. In parallel to the decision of the European Parliament (8), the EESC has called for ‘ecocide’, as defined by the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide, to be codified as a criminal offence under EU law (9). The recognition of the crime of ecocide in the revised EU Environmental Crime Directive will lead to developments in legislation beyond the EU, in particular in the International Criminal Court, which may aid in bringing a degree of accountability for Russia reflecting the environmental and ecological harm caused.

2.1.5.

On 19 January 2023, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the establishment of a tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine — supported by the EESC in its plenary session in February (10). The text of the resolution makes reference to environmental matters twice. First, it recognises the link between war and long-term damage to the natural environment and climate. Second, it calls for the establishment of an international register that, among other things, records widespread and severe damage to the natural environment and the climate in order to help determine future reparations for the damage caused. In this context, it is essential that the link between environmental damage as a weapon of war is emphasised and strengthened and that these crimes are prosecuted.

2.1.6.

The environmental damage caused by the war includes ecosystem degradation, air and water pollution, and contamination of arable and pasture fields. For example, the leaks of two Russian gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea could cause an unprecedented impact on the climate and other aspects of the environment (11). Since the war began, 200 000 hectares of forest have been affected by fires, 680 000 tonnes of fossil fuels have gone up in flames, and 180 000 cubic metres of soil have been contaminated by munitions. The war has degraded protected areas and destroyed water treatment plants. The danger is all the greater as Ukraine is the 2nd most nuclearised country in Europe with 15 reactors. Over 100 forest fires have been triggered by the conflict, releasing 33 million tonnes of CO2. Russian bombing is destroying Ukrainian biodiversity. Ukrainian experts estimate the environmental damage caused by Russia at EUR 24 billion.

2.1.7.

The war in Ukraine is inflicting unprecedented and long-lasting challenges on the environment. It is also adversely affecting the physical and mental health, integrity and well-being of the Ukrainian people and its future generations. These impacts are compounded for vulnerable groups and special attention has to be paid to the psychological effect of the war and mental health issues. The war is causing air, water and soil contamination, as well as noise pollution, all of which will affect its victims for generations. Many problems can be considered to go beyond the borders of Ukraine and serious risks exist collectively for public health. Like the effects of war, the mental and physical health impacts of environmental degradation, in particular the impacts of air, soil, and water contamination, are known to be intergenerational. It is not only the children living in or who have fled Ukraine today who will suffer their impacts; generations to come will also suffer.

2.1.8.

This makes the efforts of Ukrainian youth movements and organisations to ensure a voice for their generation particularly poignant. It is important that their voices and opinions form part of reconstruction efforts.

2.1.9.

Damage to our shared ecosystem, such as soil degradation, is directly threatening future agricultural production and exposing the fragility of global food security. In particular, the current structure of the commodities market is not delivering for the ‘sustainable economy we need’ and for the objectives linked to sustainable development, climate ambition and the just transition enshrined in the UN’s 2030 Agenda and the European Green Deal, but rather actively works against them (12).

2.1.10.

Civil society played a key role in defending the environment in Ukraine before the war. The war has dramatically affected civil society’s ability to conduct its activities. Many environmental defenders have had to flee, or are contributing to the war efforts. Those still able to operate have turned their attention to documenting the consequences of Russia’s war of aggression on the environment (13). Their involvement will be vital in rebuilding Ukraine’s environment and ensuring that Ukraine adopts the EU’s environmental law in order to enable it to accede to the EU.

2.1.11.

Environmental protection and the impacts on daily life and health continue to be important for Ukrainians. Moreover, according to a public survey, 95,2 % of respondents believe that restoring nature will be important in the-post war reconstruction of Ukraine (14).

2.1.12.

With adequate international support, Russia’s destruction of Ukraine’s heavy industry infrastructure could be turned into an opportunity for Ukraine to tap its solar and wind potential and build back better and greener with alternative electricity sources, benefiting its citizens and those beyond its borders, which would substantially strengthen Ukraine’s position in its EU accession negotiations.

2.1.13.

The situation at present remains unstable. There are serious uncertainties about the future. Beyond the dramatic human and humanitarian disaster, questions will arise on the final cost of rebuilding Ukraine and the extent to which Russia can be held liable for bearing it. The EU has an important role to play. In the EESC’s resolution on War in Ukraine and its economic, social and environmental impact (15), alongside the human impacts, the EESC highlighted that environmental impacts of the war as a consequence of bombings, oil and gas leaks, and incidents in chemical factories and nuclear plants, are of major concern for Ukrainians, the EU and beyond. These environmental impacts will inevitably have long-lasting consequences for human health and ecosystems. The environmental impact of the war is a real threat for the population: the pollution could take years to clean up, increasing the risk of cancers, respiratory diseases and developmental delays in children, UN experts warn (16). Reproductive health is another concern. The EESC stressed that the EU must help protect Ukraine’s environment and repair environmental damage caused by the war. The EESC maintains that all reconstruction efforts will be carried out in compliance with international ILO standards and the principles of social conditionality. The EESC has proposed that the EU respond through programmes such as RescEU and the LIFE programme, in coordination with national, regional and local mechanisms and in cooperation with the private sector and NGOs.

2.1.14.

While the war is still ongoing, cross-border cooperation between civil society organisations, governments and international organisations is important for mapping and monitoring environmental damage of a cross-border nature, in order to assess the extent of the damage and financial needs, spark investments, and reallocate resources for the sustainable and social restoration of Ukraine. In the case of mapping, the EEA has supported efforts to improve capacity to gather information reflecting the pre-war state of the environment, which could be used as the baseline in monitoring processes (17).

2.1.15.

The Commission and the Council must support civil society’s efforts to document environmental damage, including environmental crimes, committed by Russia. The EU must also ensure that its efforts to support the rebuilding of Ukraine prevent and mitigate the dire ecological and environmental impacts of the war so as to give effect to human rights.

2.1.16.

The EU’s efforts must also ensure that Ukraine’s economy and the EU economy are no longer dependent on fossil fuels and that rebuilding efforts move away from fossil fuel infrastructure. The EU’s efforts must also ensure that Ukraine is able to play its role in the global food system and — with a view to Ukraine’s accession to the EU — to enable the EU to fulfil its commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Agreement. The EU should also ensure that its sanctions programmes have a positive impact on the environment. NGOs have called, for example, for the use of sanctions that would not only hamper Russia’s ability to pursue its illegal war but also its ability to profit from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (18).

2.2. The EU’s legal obligation to protect the right to a healthy environment

2.2.1.

On 28 July 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution recognising the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right (19), which calls upon nations, international organisations, businesses and all other stakeholders to step up efforts to ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for all. The 27 EU Member States voted in favour of the resolution, alongside the overwhelming majority of nations. Echoing the EESC’s 2021 Information Report on Environmental protection as a prerequisite for respect for fundamental rights (20), the UN’s resolution recognises that ‘environmental degradation, climate change, biodiversity loss, desertification and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to effectively enjoy all human rights’. Among other things, the resolution calls upon international organisations such as the EU ‘to enhance international cooperation, strengthen capacity-building and continue to share good practices in order to scale up efforts to ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for all’.

2.2.2.

The right to a healthy environment acknowledges the fundamental link between the environment and human health. Human health and the quality of the environment cannot be separated — the health of ecosystems, animals and people are interconnected — and the EU must safeguard this right. Environmental deterioration is the primary cause of ill health. For example, in 2019, 307 000 premature deaths were attributed to fine particulate matter, 40 400 to nitrogen dioxide, and 16 800 to acute ozone (21). Of course, the problem extends beyond air quality. Noise pollution, for example, results in 12 000 deaths per year (22). The interconnectedness of the environmental and human health is also particularly obvious in the area of food security.

2.2.3.

The EU’s legal order is at the cutting edge globally when it comes to the recognition, at a supranational level, of the right to a healthy environment. Treaty provisions (Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) sit alongside various others, notably Article 3(3) and Article 21(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 191 TFEU (23), as well as various other provisions of the Charter (24), which, read together, amount to recognition of a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. By virtue of Article 51(1) of the Charter, the EU institutions are subject to this obligation at all times and the Member States are subject to it when implementing EU law (25). The European Parliament has called for ‘the right to a healthy environment [to] be recognised in the Charter’ and for the EU ‘to lead the initiative to recognise a similar right internationally’ (26).

2.2.4.

By virtue of Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EU is also bound to respect the provisions of the Convention when provisions of the Charter correspond to provisions of the Convention. Notably through the right to respect for private life, family life, and home (Article 7 of the Charter, Article 8 of the Convention), the European Court of Human Rights has arguably already recognised the right to a safe and healthy environment (27). This implies not only negative obligations (the obligation not to impair the right to a healthy environment), but also positive obligations to take measures, such as those concerning air quality, in order to ensure respect for this right (28). These obligations will become even more enforceable once the EU accedes to the Convention, as it is required to do by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union. Echoing the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has called for a protocol to the Convention that would explicitly recognise ‘the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment’ (29). This would create an enforceable right across the 27 EU Member States and the 19 third countries that are also members of the Council of Europe.

2.2.5.

The EU is also widely recognised as having an outsized influence on global environmental regulation. Various areas of EU law that affect the right to a healthy environment — notably the rules on toxic substances under the REACH Regulation (30) — are textbook cases of the ‘Brussels effect’ (31), by which EU rules become global standards.

2.2.6.

The right to a healthy environment is vital to the social and economic well-being of people in Europe and worldwide. It is estimated that some 40 % of jobs globally depend on a healthy climate and ecosystem (32). In the light of the international legal framework and this stark reality, it is not surprising that numerous pieces of EU legislation have been adopted to give effect to the EU’s obligation to ensure respect for the right to a healthy environment. EU rules on ambient air quality (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (33)) are a clear example. Advocate-general Kokott found that ‘[t]he rules on ambient air quality therefore put in concrete terms the Union’s obligations to provide protection following from the fundamental right to life under Article 2(1) of the Charter and the high level of environmental protection required under Article 3(3) TEU, Article 37 of the Charter, and Article 191(2) TFEU.’ (34) For maximum protection of human health, the EESC recommends fully aligning the EU’s air quality standards with the updated World Health Organization Global Air Quality Guidelines by 2030.

2.2.7.

The EU’s Environmental Action Programmes — required under Article 192(3) TFEU — increasingly acknowledge a healthy environment as a right. The 8th Environmental Action Programme explicitly recognises that ‘[p]rogressing towards the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as laid out in Resolution 48/13 of the United Nations Human Rights Council, is an enabling condition for attaining the priority objectives of the 8th EAP.’ (35)

2.2.8.

What is often lacking, however, is effectiveness in practice (36), and the EESC encourages all Members States and European institutions to deepen their efforts to improve the effectiveness of existing legal tools. The many examples of litigation challenging failures by Member States or the EU itself in areas such as clean air, climate, fishing, or water show the extent to which public authorities are failing to ensure respect for this right.

2.2.9.

In the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine and Ukraine’s prospective accession to the EU, it is more important than ever for the EU and its Member States to give effect to the right to a healthy environment. This means giving environmental protection the same priority as other areas of law, such as competition or data protection, where the EU is a global model in both theory and practice.

2.2.10.

In doing so, the EU has the opportunity to acknowledge the intergenerational nature of the right to a healthy environment.

2.2.11.

It is not surprising that youth movements are especially vocal in calling for environmental protection. Because of the negative impacts of environmental degradation on reproductive health, the very existence of future generations is at risk. The EU should follow the example of Member States that have introduced institutions designed to protect the interests of future generations. Such an institution at EU level would help ensure that future generations enjoy the social and economic benefits that environmental protection today will bring.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) CM/Del/Dec(2022) 1431/2.3, Consequences of the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.

(2) See, for example, Article 11(2)(b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

(3) See, for example, Article 3(5): ‘The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties’.

(4) No Member State is larger. Among current candidate countries, only Turkey is larger.

(5) Convention on Biological Diversity: National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

(6) ‘Unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts’, Stop Ecocide Foundation.

(7) Criminal Code of Ukraine.

(8) Decision of 29 March 2023.

(9) EESC opinion: Improving environmental protection through criminal law (OJ C 290, 29.7.2022, p. 143).

(10) Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Ukraine: One year after the Russian invasion — the European civil society perspective (OJ C 146, 27.4.2023, p. 1).

(11) Nord Stream: Russian gas pipe leaks could have an ‘unprecedented’ environmental impact | Euronews.

(12) EESC opinion on Food price crisis: the role of speculation and concrete proposals for action in the aftermath of the Ukraine war (OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 51).

(13) See, for example, the work of EcoAction: Crimes against the environment after one month of Russia's war against Ukraine — Ecoaction.

(14) How does the war change Ukrainians: public opinion poll about the war, the environment, post-war reconstruction and EU accession, Resource and Analysis Centre ‘Society and Environment’, 2023.

(15) OJ C 290, 29.7.2022, p. 1.

(16) OECD, July 2022, Consequence's environnementales de la guerre en Ukraine et perspectives pour une reconstruction verte (oecd.org).

(17) ENI Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS).

(18) Agence Europe, Europe Daily Bulletin No 13014, ‘Thirteen NGOs call for inclusion of Russian fishing vessels in upcoming EU sanctions against Putin’s regime’, 6 September 2022.

(19) Resolution (A/76/L.75) — UN Digital Library.

(20) EESC information report: Environmental protection as a prerequisite for respect for fundamental rights.

(21) European Environment Agency, ‘Air Quality in Europe 2021: Health impacts of air pollution in Europe’, 15 November 2021.

(22) European Environment Agency, ‘Health risks caused by environmental noise in Europe’, 14 December 2020.

(23) This Article sets out the aims of EU environmental policy.

(24) Notably Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (right to integrity of the person), Article 35 (ensuring a high level of human health in the definition and implementation of the EU’s policies and activities), and Article 38 (consumer protection).

(25) ‘The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law’.

(26) P9_TA(2021)0277, EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives, paragraph 143.

(27) Irmina Kotiuk, Adam Weiss and Ugo Taddei, in the Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol. 13, special issue, September 2022.

(28) On positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (and therefore Article 7 of the Charter), see e.g., Fadeyeva v Russia, application number 55723/00, judgment of 9 June 2005.

(29) Resolution 2396 (2021), Anchoring the right to a healthy environment: need for enhanced action by the Council of Europe.

(30) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

(31) Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World, Oxford University Press, 2020.

(32) ILO: World Employment and Social Outlook 2018 — Greening with jobs, 2018.

(33) Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1).

(34) Case C-723/17, Craeynest v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, paragraph 53.

(35) Decision (EU) 2022/591 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2030 (OJ L 114, 12.4.2022, p. 22).

(36) EESC opinion on the Implementation of EU environmental legislation in the areas of air quality, water and waste (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 33).

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/17

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on further enhancing the EU’s digital competitiveness

(exploratory opinion)

(2023/C 228/03)

Rapporteur:	Gonçalo LOBO XAVIER
Co-rapporteur:	Philip VON BROCKDORFF

Referral	Presidency of the European Council, 14.11.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	4.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	145/0/0

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

For the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), there is no doubt that digital competitiveness is vital for the overall competitiveness of the EU and should be seen as an essential part of the EU’s competitiveness agenda as highlighted in previous EESC reports. Considerable improvements in competitiveness are needed for the EU to succeed in the global competitive environment. To this end, the EESC has called for the introduction of a competitiveness check that conforms with EU policies and objectives to be embedded in the EU’s policy- and law-making processes. It should include a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of any new initiatives on competitiveness and ensure that competitiveness aspects are properly considered in decision-making. The EESC believes that with this perspective and with clear messages it would be easier to involve citizens and motivate them to achieve the overall goals.

1.2.

The EESC supports the position that the EU needs to provide a favourable business environment, based on a comprehensive strategy that brings together and aligns different policy areas, with competitiveness, the social dimension and impact of business on citizens’ welfare being at the forefront. For the EESC, the aim should be to boost digital-driven competitiveness by improving the conditions, on the one hand, for the development and supply of digital solutions by EU enterprises, and, on the other hand, for the adoption and use of digital solutions across the wide variety of EU businesses, including sectors such as manufacturing, transport and logistics, retail, agriculture and construction, just to mention the more relevant ones.

1.3.

European citizens must be involved in the digital competitiveness strategy and must feel reassured when it comes to one of the most relevant topics regarding digital and data collection: cybersecurity. The EESC is of the view that the EU needs to promote a European data economy by enhancing the availability, accessibility and transfer of data, accompanied by appropriate data protection. To this end, the EU needs a more strategic approach to enable stakeholders to gather, store, pool, share and analyse data securely. It is crucial to accelerate initiatives towards sector-specific cross-European data spaces to enable better analysis and use of data for the benefit of European society, the EU and the competitiveness of its businesses. The data spaces could seed and boost new scalable industrial innovators and start-ups. A well-functioning single market of data is also crucial because it is intrinsically linked to the single market of goods, services, capital and people, as well as to energy and transport systems.

1.4.

For the EESC, investment in a comprehensive, effective and secure digital infrastructure is a necessary foundation for any digital development. That can be clearly seen in other geographic areas that are leading in some fields on a global scale. Besides digital networks, data centres, computing capacity etc., this must also cover access to low-carbon energy and the critical raw materials needed in digital products and systems.

1.5.

For the EU to take the lead in critical areas such as cybersecurity, it thus needs to promote and support cybersecurity on the one hand and boost the competitiveness of its businesses on the other. In this regard, the EESC considers that EU certification needs to remain market-led and based on existing international standards. The EU should raise security levels by ‘Europeanising’ existing national certification schemes to ensure a harmonised market among the Member States, before drafting new candidate schemes under the Cybersecurity Act (CSA). The EU must also guarantee a coherent and harmonised legislative framework at EU level and avoid inconsistencies in EU legislation, e.g. risks of non-aligned requirements with cyber provisions included in vertical legislation in the New Legislative Framework (NLF).

1.6.

For the EESC, it is clear that excellence in key technologies requires a significant increase in both public and private investment in research and innovation, the development of world-class RDI infrastructures, the attraction of talent, and the creation of ecosystems based on cooperation between businesses, universities and research institutions. While it is important to enhance the uptake of AI, quantum and other advanced technologies, it must also be recognised that many SMEs face big challenges in adopting even basic digital technologies. The EU and Member States should focus specific efforts on supporting and facilitating the digitalisation of SMEs. This will involve engaging SMEs in innovation hubs, data spaces and business ecosystems. It is also necessary to raise SMEs’ awareness of the opportunities provided by digitalisation, the support available for skills development, and the technical expertise and guidance available on the regulation in this area.

1.7.

Once again here, the EESC maintains that people are one of the most important European assets that can change the pace of economic and social development. It is necessary for the Member States to invest decisively in education and training systems, including life-long learning, in order to respond to the current and future needs of both the development and application of digital tools and solutions. The EU must also encourage and facilitate the cross-border mobility of labour and talent, both within the EU and in cooperation with third countries. The EESC also maintains that the ‘golden years’ section of the population must be involved and engaged in this process.

1.8.

To make the regulatory framework contribute to digital competitiveness, the EU must ensure that regulations are fit for purpose, encourage innovation and investment, and provide equal conditions and treatment in the single market. The EU also needs to cooperate with like-minded countries to enhance common international rules and standards. While maintaining high standards, any regulations must be conducive to the successful digitalisation and competitiveness of businesses. The public sector also needs to digitalise its own operations and services, including administrative processes. Speeding up the permit procedures for investments and other business operations is an example of urgent needs where digitalisation would be part of the solution.

1.9.

The EESC supports the idea that access to finance, whether venture capital, public funding or any other source of financing, is another prerequisite for a successful and efficient digital transformation. Regarding the Multiannual Financial Framework, the funding for the Digital Europe programme should be increased to strengthen, for example, the role, visibility and accessibility of Digital Innovation Hubs. This is well justified, given that digital companies grow on average two and a half times faster than non-digital ones. Evidently, the EESC is not calling for a separate investment line for ‘digital transformation’: the EESC is calling for a combined and reasonable strategy regarding the funding process for digitalisation to create suitable conditions for all stakeholders involved in the innovation ecosystem.

1.10.

As in many different areas of the economy and society (industrial strategy, health systems, retail, etc.), the EESC calls for a smart and combined strategy regarding skills. Many sectors are already preparing large-scale projects regarding the reskilling and upskilling of their workforce based on digitalisation and the green transition. The EESC calls for a coordinated programme for skills that can allow the existing and new workforce to surpass the challenges involved. Member States should allocate enough resources to address this challenge and this must be an immediate priority, especially to support SMEs that are still struggling with difficulties related to the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine.

1.11.

The EESC believes that ambitious and challenging key performance indicators are fundamental here to boost and measure the EU’s digital competitiveness. The current indicators (based on the Digital Economy and Society Index, DESI) and the targets set in the context of the Digital Compass should be assessed and complemented from the point of view of digital competitiveness, to monitor not only the enablers but also the benefits of digital development such as new digital products and their share in the markets, more efficient production processes and the accompanying impact on productivity, and the deployment of digital solutions to societal challenges (e.g. health and climate). The monitoring of the indicators needs to address the progress over time in the EU and its Member States and involve comparison with international competitors. Motivation of citizens through better communication and their involvement in the process is also important.

2. Background

2.1.

This opinion is a response to the request from the Swedish presidency of the Council for an EESC exploratory opinion in the area of EU competitiveness as a follow-up to opinion (INT/1000) (1) on a Competitiveness Check adopted at the request of the Czech presidency. The Swedish presidency of the Council asked the EESC to explore the topic of What is needed for the EU to further enhance its digital competitiveness, and in particular to enable businesses to benefit from digitalisation. This opinion will attempt to put the focus on the EU’s competitiveness in the context of the digital transition towards a more sustainable economic growth model. It will address the measures and policies that are necessary to further enhance the EU’s digital competitiveness, and in particular to enable businesses and workers to benefit from the process of digitalisation.

2.2.

It is important to recall that in INT/1000, the EESC recognised that the single market and the EU’s social market economic growth model have greatly contributed towards supporting economic growth and social wellbeing across the EU. That basis is important in any proposals aimed at enhancing digital competitiveness and in this particular case it will be no different.

2.3.

It is also important to realise that Europe’s competitiveness as compared with its main competitor nations has deteriorated over the past years as evidenced in key economic indicators on competitiveness and productivity growth. Digitalisation, however, is an area where the EU has made important inroads and could be the basis for increased competitiveness and increased profitability for businesses and improved working conditions for workers. A forward-looking medium-term perspective is needed to chart the way forward in the process towards the digital transition.

3. Digitalisation in the context of the competitiveness agenda

3.1.

The EESC has called on the Commission to make the competitiveness agenda one of its priorities with the principal goal of enhancing the EU’s competitiveness. The Commission initiatives in the area of digitalisation are all aimed at facilitating the digital transition in economies and societies across the EU. A successful transition, however, requires a firm and unrelenting commitment on the part of the Member States. This commitment is already expressed in Recovery and Resilience measures at individual Member State level but the EESC believes that the Member States may not all be moving towards digitalisation at the same pace and with the same intensity, which is crucial if the EU is to become more competitive.

3.2.

The EU must rely more than ever on the Single Market, but just as importantly, should focus on access to foreign markets; investment and access to funding; tax systems; research and innovation; skills and strengthening of the labour market; as well as MSMEs and the twin transitions, also taking into account the sustainable finance framework with competitiveness being consistent with social and environmental objectives (2). The digital transition is key to all this since it provides the basis for innovation, increasing competitiveness, and developing the labour market, while at the same time providing opportunities for better working conditions in the context of a social market economy.

3.3.

The EESC believes that digitalisation is the driver towards making the Single Market reach its potential. After 30 years of social and economic benefits arising from the Single Market, the EESC is of the view that much more can be achieved, and that digitalisation, if implemented successfully and with the same intensity and inclusion across the EU, will make a huge difference to businesses, workers and citizens of all ages and social backgrounds.

3.4.

The EESC is also of the view that in strengthening Europe’s competitiveness, policy support for an entrepreneurial and a knowledge-based economy that can retain and attract talent and offer improved working conditions is crucial. This is what the EESC understands by a complete digital transition process in enterprise. For the EESC, it is clear that the EU needs to provide a favourable business environment as a whole, to be based on a comprehensive strategy that brings together and aligns different policy areas.

3.5.

The EESC acknowledges the many initiatives and policies that have been applied to increase competitiveness in the past, no doubt with good intentions. The reality has shown, however, that the EU is now lagging behind the US and China insofar as productivity is concerned. Against this background, digitalisation offers an opportunity to make up ground on both the US and China while at the same time applying an economic growth model that is more sustainable and focuses on both the economic and the social wellbeing of EU citizens.

4. Policies to support digitalisation in the context of the competitiveness agenda

4.1.

The EESC has in a number of its opinions expressed its view that the digital transition requires further and more focused investment in digital skills development. There is also a strong economic argument for increased investment in human resources and specifically in the link between skills development and productivity and indirectly competitiveness. Developing the range of digital skills is necessary to support workplace innovation. The EESC considers that innovation in the workplace should especially focus on methods of organising work and the way skills are utilised and developed in the workplace, and not just on the supply of workers. Working and employment conditions are just as important as investing in new technology or equipment. The EESC therefore recommends that businesses and the public sector should reflect on what kinds of policies and forms of work organisation have been shown to be effective in success stories and have enhanced innovation through investment in skills. Those success stories could then be replicated in other businesses.

4.2.

The EESC has in previous opinions also recommended investment in the infrastructure necessary to support digitalisation across the EU. Again, the Recovery and Resilience Plans are intended to do just that. Our concern is that this investment may be largely directed towards the public sector. The EESC acknowledges that shifting towards digitalised public services in say the judiciary indirectly increases competitiveness through enhanced efficiency. That said, enterprises also require a relatively high level of investment and, without available financial support, businesses of all size especially SMEs may struggle to keep up the financial outlay required to digitalise their work processes and invest in their workforce.

4.3.

The EESC recommends a review of existing funding opportunities for digitalisation provided by state entities across the EU. In general, schemes aimed at providing financial support to enterprises in the area of digitalisation are project-based with a formal application and approval process required prior to the commencement of project activities in order to secure the funding. Apart from the usual pre-award administrative procedures associated with such schemes, which may be a burden for some businesses (although these are being streamlined over time), the current processes tend to delay the launch of projects and initiatives in support of digitalisation in businesses.

4.4.

This may be non-feasible for businesses which require immediate results in order to commence the commercialisation process to improve products/services/processes to maintain a competitive edge, target new markets, and reduce costs or simply to respond to customer requirements. Such project-centric schemes may therefore dissuade private businesses from applying for funding. Therefore, the EESC calls for a new, albeit complementary, form of funding based on digital activities rather than only on projects. Under this approach, tax credits or cash payments would be provided to businesses based on their annual reported expenditure on digital activities, with eligible expenditures defined beforehand in order to provide clarity. The eligible costs would include any expenditure on staff training and development in the area of digitalisation.

4.5.

Whereas the EESC acknowledges the EU’s capacity in the field of digitalisation with inroads being made in both the legislative and technological aspects, we are of the view that both national and foreign direct investment, particularly to support research and innovation in the area of digitalisation, remains critical. This, in our view, will also enhance the EU’s competitiveness in the global market. Aspiring for strategic autonomy in the production of semiconductors is positive, and the EESC is of the view that the EU can ill-afford to experience shortages that risk disrupting European industries. Semiconductors are at the core of the EU’s industrial policy aiming to achieve strategic autonomy in the digital sphere. While these risks need to be mitigated, the EESC cautions against taking a protectionist approach which puts at risk research partnerships with digital tech companies worldwide.

4.6.

Sustainable economic growth based on a successful digital transition is essential for the prosperity of the EU. This is also in line with the EU’s objective for a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. The EESC believes that this can only be achieved by increasing productivity growth from current levels in all sectors of the economy. The EESC is of the view that digitalisation is playing and can continue to play a key role in attaining the above economic and social objectives. The EESC also notes that in manufacturing, productivity growth has been fastest in technology-driven industries, which supports the view that digitalisation can increase both profits for enterprises and real earnings for workers. Moreover, digitalisation is an essential way of advancing the green transition. The EU thus needs to maximise the opportunities by promoting simultaneously both tracks of the twin transition.

4.7.

To achieve real digital competitiveness in the economy and society, the EESC calls for a smart and combined strategy regarding skills. Several sectors are already preparing large-scale projects regarding the reskilling and upskilling of their workforce based on digitalisation and the green transition. The EESC calls for a coordinated programme for skills that can allow the existing and new workforce to surpass the challenges involved and this must be a priority.

5. Competitiveness check and evaluation of digitalisation programmes

5.1.

Digital competitiveness is vital for the overall competitiveness of the EU and should be seen as an essential part of the EU’s competitiveness agenda. Considerable improvements in competitiveness are needed if the EU is to succeed amid fierce global competition. To this end, the EESC has also called for the introduction of a competitiveness check that conforms with EU policies and objectives, to be embedded in the EU’s policy- and law-making processes. Proper governance structures are also needed to ensure that the competitiveness check and agenda fully materialise in practice.

5.2.

The EESC notes the current Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox but points out that, as highlighted by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, there is an evident need for improvements, especially with respect to the implementation of the measures necessary to increase competitiveness.

5.3.

Finally, the EESC calls for an effective use of the financial resources allocated to innovation and R & D activities related to the digitalisation process. In this context, it is also fundamental to evaluate the impact and proper implementation of the existing programmes that may have been developed to create the conditions for digitalisation. The prioritisation of access to finance, regarding both private and public investment, may be well perceived by European citizens and notably organised civil society.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 76.

(2) OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 76.

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/22

Opinion for the European Economic and Social Committee on the Single Market at 30 – how to further improve the functioning of the Single Market

(exploratory opinion)

(2023/C 228/04)

Rapporteur:	Felipe MEDINA MARTÍN
Co-rapporteur:	Angelo PAGLIARA

Referral	Presidency of the European Council, 14.11.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	4.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	137/1/0

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) considers that the internal market has been, and still is, one of the great political and economic successes of the European integration process. Citizens and companies have benefited from it, and it should be considered as a process of continuous improvement that is always adapting to new needs as they arise. Many advantages have been achieved during last 30 years, but a critical review and a new improvement is still needed, not only in terms of what remains to be achieved, but also in terms of the new challenges to be faced such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The EESC wishes to contribute to this process of improvement and proposes the following measures to strengthen it.

1.2.

The EESC hopes that the ‘Single Market Program 2021-2027’, aimed at improving the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and sustainability of businesses, will be accompanied by adequate control and protection tools regarding the quality of work, a level playing field for all companies, citizens’ rights, and consumer protection. At the same time, the EESC asks that all the necessary measures be put in place to overcome all forms of social and fiscal dumping to ensure a fair competition and a correct functioning of the Single Market, avoiding all forms of distortions.

1.3.

The ongoing geopolitical challenges will have an influence on the functioning of the Single Market, supply systems and the resilience of the European economy. The EESC welcomes the move to reduce critical dependencies on third countries and calls on the European Commission to adopt all necessary measures to update European industrial policy by preserving and strengthening the Single Market and benefits for consumers, workers, and businesses.

1.4.

The recent crisis showed that the main priority of the EU Single Market should be to improve living standards and working conditions by promoting growth and fair competitiveness, and creating a business-friendly and socially friendly environment. The EESC considers the free movement of people and workers to be one of the cornerstones of the Single Market, and so it calls for an acceleration in the recognition of qualifications and diplomas between Member States. Specific attention for displaced workers is a must.

1.5.

The EESC considers that European businesses face problems related to shortcomings of the Single Market which seriously affect competitiveness and sustainability. In spite of a huge effort regarding the implementation of the Single Marker rules, most of the regulatory burden continues to be generated at national level. At this end the EU institutions should aim, ensuring their higher standards, for a full harmonisation, and MS should keep in mind the possible impacts of their additions on the integrity and proper functioning of the market and should, if possible, avoid measures that could cause significant distortion and fragmentation, the EESC recommends that the EU institutions act more proactively and swiftly to come up with legislation in time to foster harmonisation. It is essential to limit as much as possible national initiatives that could jeopardise the internal market and its common rules. In this connection, the EESC highlights that the Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS) mechanism should be reinforced to enable the conditions for a real Single Market and not 27 different ones.

1.6.

The EESC advocates for a firm commitment to improve the quality of legislation in Europe and in the Member States. The EESC believes that a review should be carried out at the preliminary stages of European legislation — a compulsory impact analysis prior to any legal initiative, and a public consultation — to make the initiative more transparent and improve its objectives. Along the same lines, the Better Regulation agenda and REFIT programme should concentrate on achieving greater openness and integration of the markets for goods and services, to achieve the greatest benefit for citizens and the European economy, analysing if superfluous legislation exists and concentrating mainly on those areas where harmonisation is necessary and enhancing existing social protection legislation.

1.7.

The EESC considers that greater emphasis must be put on implementation, simplification and enforcement, especially regarding Member States. The EESC calls on them to strictly implement and enforce common rules and avoid further national regulations when these are not necessary (1).

1.8.

The EESC urges the European Commission to evaluate each regulation in terms of its contribution to the competitiveness of companies and the well-being of citizens, and to identify barriers to be systematically removed and eliminated.

1.9.

The EESC considers that the existing number of legal instruments available to the European Union to defend its internal market are sufficient and commensurate with needs: the TRIS procedure, mutual recognition of legislation, SOLVIT, the 28th regime, the complaints procedure, CEN-Cenelec, standards, etc. These are essential instruments for the protection of the Single Market, but their potential is not always exploited as they must be more efficient and useful.

1.10.

The EESC considers that of all the new challenges facing the Single Market, priority must be given to promoting the EU’s open strategic autonomy in relation to supply and trade, in the energy sector, in critical raw materials and, more generally, in innovation leadership, digitisation and advanced research. The EESC recommends enhancing cooperation and agreements with like-minded countries.

1.11.

In the area of goods and services, the EESC recognises the positive impact of joint purchasing in different sectors such as gas or retail. These kinds of European alliances have many pro-competitive effects and evident benefits for consumers, so such alliances must be clearly supported by the EU institutions.

1.12.

The EESC is convinced that the challenges of the Single Market deriving from the digital transition must be addressed through social dialogue and a leading position of the EU also in the application of shared legislation to protect the most vulnerable and ensure that the efficiency pursued does not undermine social, economic and territorial cohesion as well as political stability.

1.13.

The Single Market is not perfect but must be continuously adapted to changing circumstances to keep functioning even in times of crisis and actively foster its freedoms (the pandemic has shown that free movement cannot be taken for granted). This anniversary should therefore be an opportunity to put this policy back on the European agenda and to propose improvements for the near future.

1.14.

The EESC is worried that the relaxation of State aid rules in response to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) could create further asymmetries between Member States, thus jeopardising the resilience of the Single Market, and believes that the best way to provide new momentum to European industrial policy and investment in green technologies is to develop a European Sovereignty Fund.

1.15.

The EESC highlights the important contribution of the Single Market to avoid protectionism and develop a level playing field within the EU. In this connection, the EESC considers that a necessary reflection on the criteria for allocating State aid, their effects, their utility, and their resilience must be deeply analysed. There are economic sectors that have never been able to access this type of aid which, moreover, is unbalanced between some Member States and others, causing differences in competitiveness within the EU.

2. Introduction

2.1.

2023 marks the 30th anniversary of one of the European Union’s greatest political, economic and social successes in the European integration process: the Single Market. However, the anniversary should be the occasion to fundamentally adapt the Single Market philosophy and align it with current challenges. The process began in 1986 with the Single European Act, which promoted the adoption of common rules — instead of national ones — in many different areas, through the approval of hundreds of strategic legislative measures and the application of the principle of mutual recognition.

2.2.

Today no one denies that there are positive but also negative effects of the Single Market. The latter can be considered an essential component of the European model that has allowed goods, people, services and capital to flow freely throughout the European Union, making life easier for companies, institutions and citizens in most cases.

2.3.

The Single Market has driven progress not only economically and socially, but also politically, accelerating the integration process. The free movement of people thanks to the Single Market has marked the lives of several generations of Europeans who, through programmes such as Erasmus, have been able to embrace the European spirit from a very young age, having established bonds of union and understanding with numerous people like themselves from different Member States and sharing a common European way of life.

3. General comments

3.1.

The pandemic showed that the EU needs a new economic and business model. The recent crises, the current geopolitical tensions, the challenges of the twin green and digital transitions and the recent approval of the US IRA all show that the time has come to update the Single Market and give it fresh impetus, always remembering that the Single Market is a tool for Europeans and not an aim in itself.

3.2.

The Single Market has evolved as the process of European integration has progressed. While initially the Single Market focused on eliminating non-tariff barriers and measures having equivalent effect on intra-Community trade in goods and on harmonising legislation (the Single European Market), successive political needs and ambitions have broadened its scope to new areas such as services and the digital economy.

3.3.

All this progress has been achieved only with enormous efforts on the part of all stakeholders, administrations, and economic and social operators. However, in recent years the Single Market has no longer seemed to be a political priority, and the opening up and integration of goods and services markets has fallen down the agenda. In this regard, the first shortcoming to be noted is the lack of commitment in recent years on the part of the Member States. The Council has on many occasions pledged to improve and strengthen the Single Market, but its conclusions have rarely been translated into national policies. The EESC, therefore, calls on the Council and the Member States to take further action in this regard.

3.4.

The EESC remarks that the Single Market must be useful for making European companies more competitive in global markets. It is designed to be a continuously evolving process, which is both a weakness and a risk, but also gives it a new role: resilience. This new role joins the traditional ones, which need to remain dynamic and cannot be taken for granted.

3.5.

The EESC invites the Commission and the Council to adopt all necessary measures to assist European industrial policies and companies in achieving the objectives of the green and digital transitions, by using the existing EU tools and by following, if necessary, the proposal to develop a European Sovereignty Fund. It reminds Member States and the Commission, however, that there are already numerous funding programmes and tools in existence that should be used to their full potential before adding further instruments. The EESC calls on the European Commission to involve the EESC in discussions on State aid rules.

3.6.

The EESC agrees (2) that the EU needs a robust, ambitious digital policy to capitalise on the opportunities offered by digital innovation to make the EU more competitive. The EESC highlights the fact that a real Single Market and simple, cross-border legislation will enable many sectors to respond to consumer demands and compete in a globally competitive, more digital environment.

3.7.

The digitalisation of the Single Market can provide further growth and well-being for Europeans and European companies. The EESC therefore calls on the European Commission to adopt all necessary measures to step up investments to overcome the existing digital divide between European regions. It is crucial for the Member States to step up investments in education and training in order to develop the Digital Single Market and make it more efficient. The objective must be to ensure that there are skilled workers, innovative businesses and good quality jobs by fighting precarious working conditions.

3.8.

The EESC calls on the European Commission to focus on the risks stemming from the production, circulation and storage of personal and sensitive data deriving from digitisation processes, as well as from their use and control. At the same time, the EESC asks the Commission to adopt all necessary measures to prevent this risk and take into consideration the conclusions of the current negotiations on the Council of Europe Agreement on Artificial Intelligence, human rights, democracy and rule of law (3) as a basis for the regulatory framework. The objective must be to protect personal data, workers and consumers but allow their confidential use to enable the benefits of new technologies to be exploited.

3.9.

It is crucial to accelerate initiatives towards digitalisation and sector-specific cross-European data spaces to enable better analysis and use of data for the benefit of European society and the competitiveness of Europe’s businesses. The data spaces could seed and boost new scalable industrial innovators and start-ups. A well-functioning Single Market for data is crucial also because it is intrinsically linked to the Single Market for goods, services, capital, and people, as well as to energy and transport systems.

4. The Single Market for goods and services

4.1.

The EESC considers that the Single Market’s shortcomings still need to be analysed and measures taken to eliminate them, in particular, by overcoming the unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden to facilitate the competitiveness and sustainability of European companies while preserving and enhancing the existing social protection legislation.

4.2.

The EESC highlights the problems caused by Member States when they anticipate the adoption of common measures at European level, and how they influence and guide the common solutions found in European legislation. In some cases, this is because the European Commission has not proposed measures, but sometimes it is caused by Member States that are ahead of the European proposal (e.g. origin labelling of meat products, front-of-pack food labelling (FOP), Irish proposal on health warnings for alcoholic drinks, etc.), hindering the harmonisation process and the free movement of goods. For this reason, the EESC urges the European Commission to anticipate regulations when necessary to avoid the proliferation of national regulations that fragment the Single Market.

4.3.

Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) establishes the procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and rules on information society services available for Member States. This legislative measure provides for the possibility for a Member State to be obliged to postpone the adoption of a draft regulation by 12-18 months if there is an EU initiative underway that could be compromised by the national rule and it is being renewed. However, in practice the European Commission’s prerogative is published not to be enforced, and in the end it is the Member States that condition European legislation.

4.4.

Another tool available designed to stop or counteract any action contrary to the Single Market is SOLVIT. This is a procedure applied in cases where the administration of another Member State does not apply European legislation correctly and prevents the full exercise of the rights of citizens and companies in the Single Market. It is a system of mediation between national administrations which in practice relies more on the determination of the administrations than on their legal force to remedy a situation, so the EESC considers its effectiveness to be limited and needing to be improved.

4.5.

Another tool available is the complaint procedure before the European Commission. This tool is considered effective by EESC as it is flexible and transparent, but it needs strong political support and the procedure should be improved in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

4.6.

A strategy for opening and developing the various European sectors was approved in 2018. However, problems remain, discrimination continues, and not all Member States notify the European Commission under Article 15(7) of the Services Directive.

4.7.

The EESC points out that some sectors such as the financial services or the retail and wholesale sector are highly fragmented but have been able to unite and become stronger at European level. The retail and wholesale sectors have embraced the spirit and undeniable advantages of the Single Market to serve European consumers better everyday thanks to buying alliances and the Single Market. Major challenges remain in terms of harmonisation and effective implementation of the freedom of establishment in the case of retail and the wholesale sector, which continues to see its strategy ‘A Retail Sector fit for the 21st Century’ still not fully implemented. In addition, support for buying alliances in retail is needed as a means to improve consumer welfare under a pro-competitive effect at European level.

5. The Single Market for workers

5.1.

Among the challenges facing the Single Market, the EESC points to the transformation of work and the consequent reshaping of the relationship between the parties, as well as the associated risks in terms of flexibility (of hours, location and services), in particular regarding platform workers and, more generally, digital professions and smart workers.

5.2.

Recent crises showed that the main priority of the EU Single Market should be to improve living standards and working conditions while promoting growth and fair competitiveness and creating a business and socially-friendly environment. Despite the progress made, 21,7 % of the European population is still at risk of poverty or social exclusion (Eurostat, 2021).

5.3.

The EESC considers the free movement of people and workers to be one of the cornerstones of the Single Market, and so it calls for an acceleration in the recognition of qualifications and diplomas between Member States. Specific attention must be given to ensuring fair treatment of posted workers in regard to salaries and working conditions.

5.4.

As the pandemic crisis has demonstrated, the free movement of health professionals has been a factor of convergence and self-protection for the European Union, but to date many professions still remain on the margins of this process (for example in the legal field and in teaching). The EESC (5) asks for a redesign of employment and skills support measures and investment in the skill sets of future workers through improved vocational and educational training and individual learning, supporting companies in this way. Particular attention should be dedicated to green jobs.

5.5.

Digital infrastructure is crucial for a successful application of the benefits of the Single Market in all European areas and regions, especially those that lag behind the average. The infrastructure lag increases inequalities and affect opportunities for people and businesses. The EESC therefore invites the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen investments in order to overcome the existing digital divide in the EU. Specific attention to enterprises, especially SMEs, is needed.

6. The way ahead. Future challenges for the Single Market

6.1.

The EU institutions need to further strengthen the Single Market to unleash its full potential to create growth, jobs, and a better society in the future.

6.2.

The EU institutions should aim, ensuring the higher standards, for a full harmonisation of EU law where possible and appropriate to prevent unnecessary fragmentation of the Single Market, for example on taxation. The EESC would point out that the challenges facing the Single Market include continuing to move towards tax harmonisation between Member States and avoiding dumping and, in the medium term, towards wage convergence, also preventing social dumping and/or unfair competition, particularly when attracting investment, locating enterprises, and hiring workers.

6.3.

Enforcement to make implementation and simplification the priority and guiding principle for the Single Market is crucial. The EU institutions need to ensure that the Commission’s role as Guardian of the Treaties is safeguarded in a highly politicised European environment. If national legislators — using their margin of discretion — decide to add requirements on the national level, they should do this transparently, notify the Commission and other national authorities and explain their reasons, in line with their commitment in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. Furthermore, sanctions must not deviate within the EU.

6.4.

Quality of legislation means better legislation. The preparatory process should include a competitiveness check in policy making, improved modelling of impact assessments and deeper analysis of how regulations affect the cumulative bureaucratic burden of companies, especially SMEs.

6.5.

Remove unnecessary national barriers: the European Commission and Member States should evaluate whether national technical rules are still fit for purpose, future-proofed and proportionate to improve the free movement of goods and services.

6.6.

The Commission and Member States need to ensure a level playing field for all operators, underpinned by a strong legal framework ensuring that all products and services sold on the EU market are EU-compliant and safe, to maintain consumer trust and safety in accordance with the new product and service safety regulation, which also included digital products and services.

6.7.

The EU institutions need to address Member States protectionism and discrimination effectively to ensure that consumer interests are equally served in EU and national policy decisions.

6.8.

Improvement of available tools to allow access of companies and consumers to information regarding notification (single notification window) and make the processes more useful and flexible, for example by strengthening the complaints network for cross-border consumers. The EESC encourages setting up networks of easily accessible dispute resolution schemes, as consumers would gain trust in the Single Market if they could find redress vis-à-vis companies established in other Member States without effort.

6.9.

Regarding a Single Market for public procurement: this is an area with national limitations and restrictions for companies based in another Member State that can distort the normal functioning of the Single Market and which needs a strong response from the EU institutions to complete the regulatory framework that contributes to the social progress of citizens (6).

6.10.

The European Commission, Member States and other stakeholders should collaborate to ensure sustainable communities. The climate crisis is both a threat and an opportunity: a rapid realignment of the Single Market is necessary to reflect the changed priorities under the Green Deal. The use of zero-emission technologies needs to be promoted, and workforce training needs to be adapted quickly. Green investments could usher in a long period of growth in the EU’s internal market and at the same time make an important contribution to the fight against climate change.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 28.

(2) OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 1.

(3) Council Decision (EU) 2022/2349 of 21 November 2022 authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for a Council of Europe convention on artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law (OJ L 311, 2.12.2022, p. 138).

(4) Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1).

(5) OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 1.

(6) OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 20.

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/28

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Precarious work and mental health

(exploratory opinion requested by the Spanish Presidency)

(2023/C 228/05)

Rapporteur:

José Antonio MORENO DÍAZ

Request from the Spanish Presidency of the Council	Letter, 27.7.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
	Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	158/73/12

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

According to the European Parliament’s resolution of 4 July 2017, precarious employment is ‘employment which does not comply with EU, international and national standards and laws and/or does not provide sufficient resources for a decent life or adequate social protection’.

1.2.

Work can be a factor in protecting mental health, but it can also contribute to the development of diseases, which is why the WHO considers it a social determinant of health.

1.3.

According to robust scientific evidence, precarious work increases the chances of workers’ mental health deteriorating. For example, high job insecurity increases the chances of suffering from depression and anxiety and of suicide; high demands and a low level of control increase the chances of sick leave due to a diagnosed mental disorder; similarly, the combination of these two risks increases the likelihood of suffering from depressive disorders.

1.4.

Forms of precarious work may include: involuntary part-time employment; low salaries that do not cover basic needs; zero-hour, on-demand or temporary contracts to cover structural needs; constant uncertainty regarding the duration of employment, working hours, salary, tasks, etc.; lack of autonomy and career development; and excessive demands leading to long or intensified working hours and to work-family conflict. Such forms of work are rarely a voluntary choice for workers, although there are workers who choose them.

1.5.

Precarious work is more prevalent among workers in manual labour jobs, women, young people and migrants. This adds to social inequalities and can multiply discrimination and the social gradient of mental illness.

1.6.

According to Council Directive 89/391/EEC (1) on safety and health at work, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Social Charter, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights and its action plan, neither generating or increasing corporate profits, nor reducing labour costs or ensuring flexibility for employers can come at the cost of health and safety at work.

1.7.

Precarious work is incompatible with the achievement of the SDGs in the EU.

1.8.

In order to reduce precarious work and the prevalence of the associated mental health problems, the EESC believes that it is necessary to ensure that the European and national legislation establishing quality, healthy working and employment conditions that make it possible to live a dignified life is implemented and enforced.

1.9.

To this end, the EESC considers it essential to step up measures to monitor and audit compliance with this legislation, subject to adequate resources being allocated to the competent public authority (ILO ratios), and to ensure appropriate financial sanctions for non-compliance.

1.10.

In addition, the EESC proposes debarment from public procurement tenders and public aid for businesses and organisations that do not guarantee compliance with this legislation, in line with the current public procurement Directives.

1.11.

The EESC notes the Communication on the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027 (COM(2021) 323 final). In addition, the EESC proposes adopting specific legislation on preventing psychosocial risks at EU level, as well as developing and modernising the Directive on Occupational Safety and Health (89/391/EEC), implementing prevention of occupational psychosocial risks at the source, and changing the way work is designed, managed and organised, since scientific evidence has shown that specific national legislation in this field is a more effective form of preventative action and of reducing exposure to these risks. Its benefits could therefore be extended to all EU countries by a Directive.

1.12.

The EESC stresses that combating identified work-related psychosocial risks at the source, using organisational interventions to reshape working conditions, is a step in promoting mental health in the workplace, in line with what was outlined by the WHO and the ILO in their guidelines and policy brief of September 2022 (2).

1.13.

The EESC takes note of and supports the ongoing negotiations on the 2021 proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work. Likewise, the EESC proposes developing appropriate approaches to manage the use of artificial intelligence at work in a way which prevents occupational risks and the undermining of other labour rights.

1.14.

Finally, the EESC proposes that an industrial policy at European and national level be designed in order to create quality jobs that ensure healthy working conditions and improve competitiveness.

2. General comments

2.1.

The Spanish government considers it a priority to ‘address the impact of precarious work on mental health’ during its Presidency of the Council of the EU 2023, as it is imperative to correct it ‘in order to define new labour policies to move towards healthier, people-centred, more inclusive labour markets based on decent work’ (3). It has therefore called on the EESC to draw up an exploratory opinion on this matter.

2.2.

Precarious work is incompatible with the achievement of the UN 2030 Millennium Goals, specifically SDG 8 — Decent work and economic growth, SDG 3 — Good health and wellbeing, and SDG 5 — Gender equality (4). According to the WHO (5), ‘decent work is good for mental health, and poor working environments — including discrimination and inequality, excessive workloads, low job control and job insecurity — pose a risk to mental health’.

2.3.

The European Parliament’s resolution on working conditions and precarious employment understands precarious employment (6) to mean ‘employment which does not comply with EU, international and national standards and laws and/or does not provide sufficient resources for a decent life or adequate social protection’.

2.4.

According to the EU-OSHA thesaurus, precarious employment is ‘employment that is poorly paid, insecure, unprotected, and that cannot support a household’ (7). Meanwhile, the international network Precarious Work Research (PWR) defines precarious work as ‘a multi-dimensional construct including but not limited to employment insecurity, income inadequacy, and lack of rights and protection in the employment relation, which could affect both informal and formal workers’ (8). As Eurofound notes, precarious work does not have a universal definition but the need to address it is widely recognised in order to ensure decent and healthy working conditions, in line with the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda (9).

2.5.

In light of these concepts, certain forms of employment and working conditions that shape poor quality jobs can be considered precarious. These include: involuntary part-time employment; long working hours or the obligation to be continuously available; low or unpredictable wages; abusive use of temporary contracts, zero-hour or on-demand contracts; non-contract work; and work without preventative measures.

2.6.

Precarious work may involve: longer and more intense working days; a lack of autonomy and career development; unpredictable and unsocial working days and hours leading to work-family conflict; insufficient working hours and salaries that do not cover basic costs; constant uncertainty regarding the duration of employment and working conditions (hours, salary, tasks, etc.); difficulty exercising labour rights, including collective action, reducing contractual power; greater vulnerability to abuse, discrimination and harassment; and the inability to live a dignified life, despite being employed (‘working poor’).

2.7.

Precarious work can have consequences for numerous areas of daily life, including health. EU-OSHA notes that ‘[s]tudies on the OSH effects of precarious employment found a negative association with OSH and that the higher the instability of employment, the more it is associated with morbidity/mortality’ (10).

2.8.

Some specific examples based on scientific evidence of the highest quality comparing exposed workers with unexposed workers (longitudinal studies or those performed with large databases that discard data that is random and isolate other causes both within and outside the working environment) show that the high level of perceived job insecurity that characterises precarious work increases the chances of suffering from depression by 61 %, the chances of suffering from anxiety by 77 % (11), and the chances of suicide by 51 % (12). They also show that high work demands increase the chances of sick leave on the grounds of a diagnosed mental disorder by 23 %, that having a low level of control increases this by 25 % (13) and that a combination of these two factors increases the likelihood of depression by 77 %. Likewise, long working hours increase the chances of depression by 14 % (14).

2.9.

If exposure to occupational psychosocial risks were eliminated in the EU, depression would fall by between 17 and 35 %, and cardiovascular diseases by between 5 and 11 % (15).

2.10.

Precarious forms of employment and working conditions are rarely a voluntary choice. Evidence consistently shows that these forms of employment are more prominent among workers in manual labour jobs, women, young people and migrants (16), adding to social inequalities such as class, gender, age, nationality and ethnicity, which can multiply intersectional discrimination, existing health inequalities, and the social gradient of mental illness. Although these forms of work are often not the preferred option, there are workers who choose these forms of work.

2.11.

The prevalence of precarious work also varies between EU countries (17) and between activity sectors. Incidence is higher in activities which are an extension of domestic and care work (i.e. cleaning, social and health care, hospitality, hotels, security, home delivery, etc.) (18), which has been intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, precarious work exists in all sectors — including the public sector — and in all countries.

2.12.

According to Directive 89/391/EEC on safety and health at work, the employer has a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect relating to the work. According to Article 31 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, every worker has the right to working conditions that respect his or her health, safety and dignity. Furthermore, every worker has the right to the limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods, and to an annual period of paid leave, among other things. This is further reflected in the European Social Charter, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights and its action plan. Neither generating or increasing corporate profits, nor reducing labour costs or ensuring flexibility for employers can come at the cost of health and safety of workers.

2.13.

It should be noted as regards mental health in general that public health care systems play an important role. Without rapid/necessary changes and adaptations in the public health care systems and availability of psychological and psychiatric help in emergency, remote and therapeutic mode, we will not properly address the mental health not only of employees but also of all citizens in Europe.

3. Specific comments

3.1.

The imbalance of power between capital and labour is a risk factor for precarious work. This imbalance needs to be levelled, both through laws and through social dialogue and trade union action, creating a context that protects men and women workers while maintaining favourable economic circumstances and avoiding unfair competition.

3.2.

The need to increase compliance with the legislation on the rights of workers and their representatives and to implement it is demonstrated by the fact that, in the EU, the three main reasons motivating businesses to address OSH in establishments are: to comply with legislation (89,2 %), to meet the demands of workers and their representatives (81,8 %), and to avoid fines from the labour authority (79,4 %) (19).

3.3.

Another example of the effectiveness of legislation in reducing contractual precariousness can be seen in Spain: the recently approved labour reform (the fruit of social dialogue) has reduced the abnormally high rates of temporary employment in the Spanish labour market.

4. Proposals

4.1.

The EESC notes there is robust evidence that precarious work increases the chances of experiencing poor mental health. Thus, following the recommendations of the scientific field on occupational and public health and occupational epidemiology, and those of international institutions on mental health in the workplace, and taking into account the rights laid down in Directive 89/391/EEC on preventing occupational risks at the source, all the measures proposed here consciously follow an approach aimed at limiting the spread of risks associated with precarious work in order to prevent deterioration in workers’ mental health. As the risk factors potentially having an impact on mental health vary greatly between different sectors and even between different workplaces within the same sector, best solutions can most often be found through social dialogue at sectoral or company level allowing for a targeted approach, taking into account all legal frameworks.

4.2.

The EESC notes that, in its strategic framework on health and safety at work (2021-2027) (20), the Commission indicated that it will, among other things:

—	launch an ‘EU-OSHA healthy workplaces campaign’ 2023-2025 to create a safe and healthy digital future, covering psychosocial and ergonomic risks in particular;

—	in cooperation with the Member States and the social partners, prepare a non-legislative EU-level initiative relating to mental health at work that assesses emerging issues relating to workers’ mental health, and put forward guidance for action before the end of 2022;

—	develop the analytical basis, e-tools and guidance for risk assessments relating to green and digital jobs and processes, including psychosocial and ergonomic risks in particular.

4.3. Ensuring the implementation of the existing EU and national legislation establishing quality employment and working conditions

4.3.1.

The EESC notes that the current EU Directives on employment and working conditions, representation and participation cover rights, obligations and responsibilities relating to the organisation of working time (2003/88/EC (21)), work-life balance ((EU) 2019/1158 (22)), adequate minimum wages ((EU) 2022/2041 (23)), non-discrimination (2006/54/EC (24), 2000/78/EC (25), 2000/43/EC (26)), predictability and transparency in working conditions ((EU) 2019/1152 (27)), occupational risk prevention, occupational health and job security (89/391/EEC and its specific developments), and information and consultation of workers and their representatives (2009/38/EC (28), 2003/72/EC (29), 2002/14/EC (30)). Similarly, freedom of association, freedom to engage in collective bargaining, and the right to demonstrate and strike are protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Implementing this legal corpus fully could enable workers to have decent work, reduce uncertainty, and promote mental health.

4.3.2.

However, the EESC notes there is room for improvement when it comes to the implementation and enforcement of, and compliance with, these laws on working conditions, established as necessary minimum rights, as well as with the application of the existing legislation.

4.4.

For this reason, the EESC proposes to:

4.4.1.

increase the monitoring and enforcement of existing labour legislation covered by these Directives to ensure their effective implementation. To this end, the Member States need to provide the competent labour authorities with adequate human resources, following the ILO’s recommended ratios (31);

4.4.2.

ensure appropriate financial sanctions for instances of non-compliance with these Directives;

4.4.3.

use debarment from public procurement tenders and from EU, national, local or any other public aid for non-compliance with these Directives, in line with the current public procurement Directives;

4.4.4.

make full use of the possibilities offered by the Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee (SLIC) for EU coordination in monitoring the enforcement of the legislation referred to in paragraph 4.3.1.

4.4.5.

The EESC supports the ongoing negotiations on the 2021 proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work and takes note of the on-going negotiations on the position of the Council as well as the amendments proposed by the European Parliament’s Employment Committee in December 2022. Likewise, the EESC proposes developing appropriate approaches to manage the use of artificial intelligence at work in a way which prevents occupational risks and the undermining of other labour rights.

4.5. Focussing on the prevention of work-related psychosocial risks

4.5.1.

The EESC takes note of the Communication on EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027 (COM(2021) 323 final). In addition, the EESC proposes adopting specific legislation on preventing psychosocial risks at EU level, developing and modernising the Directive on Occupational Safety and Health (89/391/EEC), implementing prevention of occupational psychosocial risks at the source, and changing the way work is designed, managed and organised, since scientific evidence shows that specific national legislation in this field is a more effective form of preventative action and of reducing exposure to these risks (32).

4.5.2.

Moreover, the EESC stresses that the right to a safe and healthy working environment was introduced in the framework of ILO fundamental principles and rights at work at the 110th International Labour Conference of June 2022, and that combating work-related psychosocial risks at the source, using organisational interventions to reshape working conditions, is an essential step in promoting mental health in the workplace, in line with what was agreed by the WHO and the ILO in their guidelines and policy brief outlining practical strategies from September 2022 (33). In addition to psychosocial risk prevention, these institutions recommend, as a second step, to improve mental health at work, protecting and promoting it, especially through training and interventions that improve mental health literacy. The third step is to support workers with mental health conditions to participate fully and equitably in work through reasonable accommodating measures and return-to-work programmes. Finally, they recommend creating an enabling environment with cross-cutting measures to improve mental health at work through leadership, investment, rights, integration, participation, evidence and compliance.

4.5.3.

The EESC underlines, as also stated in the EU level social partners framework agreement on stress, under framework Directive 89/391/EEC, all employers have a legal obligation to protect the occupational safety and health of workers. This duty also applies to problems of work-related stress in so far as they entail a risk to health and safety.

4.5.4.

In this context, the EESC proposes that this Directive develop the primary prevention of work-related psychosocial risks with an organisational and collective approach. To this end, it would cover:

4.5.4.1.

quality requirements for the assessment measures used (corroborated with health data, measuring the psychosocial risks established by scientific evidence and displaying inequalities, etc.);

4.5.4.2.

where needed, the establishment, planning and implementation of preventative measures for eliminating or minimising these risks by: (1) responding to the results of the assessment of psychosocial risks; (2) changing, at the source, working conditions that have been deemed to be harmful, using organisational measures to ensure that preventative measures do not focus solely on empowering and rehabilitating;

4.5.4.3.

the employer’s duty to reduce occupational risks by implementing appropriate measures to address identified work-related psychosocial risks reshaping working conditions, which could include: improving technology and the production processes for goods and services and increasing staff numbers in order to reduce burdens; ensuring schedule arrangements are compatible with care work within families; promoting participatory and cooperative working methods to allow workers to have a say in the way their jobs are carried out, and increasing functional support between workers and their managers; establishing fair procedures for hiring, assigning work, training and promotions in order to improve the quality of leadership; designing enriched tasks that allow workers to use their skills and knowledge, and learn new ones; promoting stability in employment and working conditions, and predictability when it comes to changes, which need to be reasoned and reasonable, in order to prevent job insecurity; and an adequate salary that must provide for a dignified life in accordance with applicable law, social dialogue and collective agreements. All of these measures would contribute to reducing precarious work and protecting mental health;

4.5.4.4.

the requirement to take duly into account the preventative purpose of the assessment in order to promote the efficient management of these risks, avoiding merely bureaucratic reassessments;

4.5.4.5.

ensuring that all these measures to prevent psychosocial risks at the source, from the design of the assessment to organisational changes and the monitoring of their effectiveness in reducing risks, are based on the participation of workers and their representatives at workplace or company level in accordance with the applicable rules on information and consultation with workers and/or their representatives. To this end, it should be ensured in line with the existing national rules that the relevant bodies exist and operate when so provided by national legislation and/or collective agreements: health and safety committees, prevention delegates, works committees, etc. Negotiations between trade union representatives and the employer should also be ensured in accordance with the applicable legislation and collective agreements.

4.6. Industrial policy designed to support the creation of quality jobs

4.6.1.

Individual countries’ industrial policy, among other factors, has an impact on companies’ ability to create high-quality, skilled jobs in an economy. The EESC therefore proposes that the design of industrial policy at European level should take account of the aim of creating high-quality, skilled jobs that ensure healthy working conditions and improve competitiveness. This could be based, among other things, on:

4.6.1.1.

much more active engagement from public authorities, including economic development agencies, focused on providing the necessary infrastructure and active employment policies geared towards the specific needs of industries with the greatest potential to create quality local jobs, requiring, in exchange, that beneficiary companies provide a minimum number of these job posts;

4.6.1.2.

targeting R & D investment towards productivity-increasing and labour-friendly technologies in order to synergistically increase their value-creating capacity;

4.6.1.3.

including criteria for preventing occupational risks and protecting workers’ health in the design of industrial policy;

4.6.1.4.

including trade and sustainable development chapters that ensure labour rights in international trade agreements.

4.7.

The EESC proposes that knowledge of individual and collective labour rights as well as entrepreneurial skills be included in the cross-cutting curriculum of compulsory education and vocational training in each country, in order to equip future workers and employers with the necessary knowledge of these matters.

4.8.

Following the results of Eurofound, EU-OSHA and Eurostat surveys and data, the EESC proposes regularly identifying the most prevalent forms of precarious work and the contexts in which they develop (countries, sectors, etc.) as well as the groups most affected (workers in manual labour jobs, women, young people, etc.), and observing how the trend develops.

4.9.

The EESC proposes boosting research into job quality and mental health, starting by improving information systems and epidemiological surveillance in these areas.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1).

(2) https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_856821/lang--en/index.htm

(3) Second Deputy Prime Minister, Ministry of Work and the Social Economy: Request for an exploratory opinion.

(4) UN General Assembly, Seventieth session (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

(5) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work

(6) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0290_EN.html

(7) https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-resources/eu-osha-thesaurus/term/62001d

(8) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01728-z

(9) https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/it/node/91840

(10) EU-OSHA (2013), Priorities for occupational safety and health research in Europe: 2013-2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 10.2802/25457.

(11) Niedhammer, I., Bertrais, S., & Witt, K. (2021). Psychosocial work exposures and health outcomes: a meta-review of 72 literature reviews with meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 47(7), 489–508.

(12) Blomqvist, S., Virtanen, M., LaMontagne, A. D., & Magnusson Hanson, L. L. (2022). Perceived job insecurity and risk of suicide and suicide attempts: a study of men and women in the Swedish working population. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 48(4), 293–301.

(13) Duchaine, CS et al. (2020). Psychosocial stressors at work and the risk of sickness absence due to a diagnosed mental disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA psychiatry, 77(8), 842-851.

(14) Niedhammer, Bertrais, Witt (2021), (see above).

(15) Niedhammer I et al. (2022). Update of the fractions of cardiovascular diseases and mental disorders attributable to psychosocial work factors in Europe. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 95(1), 233-247.

(16) https://oshwiki.osha.europa.eu/en/themes/precarious-work-definitions-workers-affected-and-osh-consequences

(17) Matilla-Santander N et al. (2019). Measuring precarious employment in Europe 8 years into the global crisis. J Public Health (Oxf), 41(2):259-267.

(18) Eurofound (2021). Working conditions and sustainable work: An analysis using the job quality framework. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

(19) https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/esener/en/survey/datavisualisation/2019

(20) Communication on the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027. Occupational safety and health in a changing world of work (COM(2021) 323 final).

(21) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9).

(22) Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU (OJ L 188, 12.7.2019, p. 79).

(23) Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union (OJ L 275, 25.10.2022, p. 33).

(24) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23).

(25) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16).

(26) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22).

(27) Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 105).

(28) Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28).

(29) Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 25).

(30) Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29).

(31) https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-administration-inspection/resources-library/publications/WCMS_844151/lang--en/index.htm, § 4.1.8.

(32) Jain, A. et al (2022), The impact of national legislation on psychosocial risks on organisational action plans, psychosocial working conditions, and employee work-related stress in Europe. Social Science & Medicine 302.

(33) https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---safework/documents/publication/wcms_856976.pdf

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussion (Rule 60 (2) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 1

Tabled by:

BLIJLEVENS René

DANISMAN Mira-Maria

MINCHEVA Mariya

PILAWSKI Lech

POTTIER Jean-Michel

VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/745

Precarious work and mental health

Point 2.7

Insert new point

Position: After existing point 2.6

Section opinion

Amendment

The definition used by the EP in its 2017 resolution (12) , on the one hand, indicates that precarious employment means work that does not comply with applicable legislation. That definition, however, also refers to work that ‘does not provide sufficient resources for a decent life or adequate social protection’. At the same time the EESC notes that, according to Eurofound, precarious work is a concept that does not have a universally accepted definition across Europe, while the need to address this complex phenomenon is widely recognised. According to WHO, at work, risks to mental health, also called psychosocial risks, may be related to job content or work schedule, specific characteristics of the workplace or opportunities for career development among other things. WHO also indicates that although psychosocial risks can be found in all sectors, some workers are more likely to be exposed to them than others, because of what they do or where and how they work (13) . Also the EU level social partners’ autonomous agreement on stress states that work-related stress can be caused by different factors such as work content, work organisation, work environment, poor communication, etc. (14) This means that when assessing the link between precarious employment and mental health risks, account must be taken of the absence of a universally accepted definition in Europe. Furthermore, the assessment must take into account the following:

—

There is no automatic causal link between what is considered as precarious work in this opinion and poor mental health but precarious work is one of the risk factors that can have a negative effect on workers’ mental health. The points raised in paragraphs (15) 1.3 and 2.6 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect this consideration.

—

Mental health is a mix of individual, family, socioeconomic and environmental circumstances, and some of the risk factors for mental health are present in workplaces but also in society in general. Precariousness must always be based on a situational assessment of the individual’s circumstances. This is also reflected in the EU level social partners’ framework agreement on stress (16) , which states that diversity of the workforce is an important consideration when tackling problems of work-related stress and that different individuals can react differently to similar situations and the same individual can react differently to similar situations at different times of his/her life. The points raised in paragraphs 1.5 and 2.6 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect these considerations.

—

In addition many of the issues linked to different types of employment are already addressed in EU and national legislation dealing with occupational health and safety, working time and other relevant aspects. The points raised in paragraphs 1.11, 2.6, 4.5.1, 4.5.4 and 4.5.4.3 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect these considerations.

—

At the same time the forms of work that this opinion appears to consider as precarious, can also be a stepping stone to entering the labour market and gradually moving to more permanent employment. The points raised in paragraph 1.5 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect this consideration.

Outcome of vote:

In favour:	81
Against:	127
Abstentions:	13

AMENDMENT 3

Tabled by:

BLIJLEVENS René

DANISMAN Mira-Maria

MINCHEVA Mariya

PILAWSKI Lech

POTTIER Jean-Michel

VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/745

Precarious work and mental health

Point 4.5.1

Insert new point

Position: After existing point 4.5

Section opinion

Amendment

Promoting mental health and well-being is in the interests of society as a whole. In working life, the promotion of mental health is important as mental health problems can lead to lower work productivity, lower work performance and higher absenteeism and good mental health is associated with better motivation and productivity. The EESC agrees with the approach of the Commission (29) to prepare, in cooperation with Member States and social partners, a non-legislative EU-level initiative related to mental health at work that assesses emerging issues related to workers’ mental health. The EESC also supports the aim of the Commission to make psychosocial and ergonomic risks part of the healthy workplaces campaign. The EESC considers that further attention should be paid, at EU and national level as well as in the workplace, to appropriate policies and/or actions to develop the primary prevention of work-related psychosocial risks with an organisational and collective approach where appropriate. There is, however, no need for proposing at the EU level specific legislation on preventing psychosocial risks. The points raised in paragraphs 1.11, 4.5.1, 4.5.4 and 4.5.4.3 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect this consideration.

Outcome of vote:

In favour:	91
Against:	127
Abstentions:	18

AMENDMENT 4

Tabled by:

BLIJLEVENS René

DANISMAN Mira-Maria

MINCHEVA Mariya

PILAWSKI Lech

POTTIER Jean-Michel

VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/745

Precarious work and mental health

Point 4.6.1

Insert new point

Position: After existing point 4.6

Section opinion

Amendment

Due to the profound changes in the operating environment, there is an urgent need for the EU to shape a comprehensive and up-to-date, innovation and excellence based industrial policy. Companies will create employment and provide quality jobs when there is a favourable regulatory and investment environment and when the business can be conducted profitably. This means that jobs cannot be planned through an industrial policy. Similarly it is not sustainable or reasonable to require that companies benefiting from infrastructure or active labour market policies create a minimum number of jobs. Furthermore, industrial policy co-exists with the applicable EU and national regulatory framework concerning occupational health and safety but industrial policy itself does not provide the criteria for preventing occupational risks. Finally, companies also need access to a skilled workforce but currently face labour and skills shortages. This underlines the importance of effective life-long learning systems and improved anticipation of future skills needs. The points raised in paragraphs 4.6.1.1 and 4.6.1.3 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect these considerations.

Outcome of vote:

In favour:	89
Against:	139
Abstentions:	9

AMENDMENT 5

Tabled by:

BLIJLEVENS René

DANISMAN Mira-Maria

MINCHEVA Mariya

PILAWSKI Lech

POTTIER Jean-Michel

VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/745

Precarious work and mental health

Point 1.3

Insert new point

Position: After existing point 1.2

Section opinion

Amendment

For instance the EU level social partner’s autonomous agreement on stress states that work-related stress can be caused by different factors such as work content, work organisation, work environment, poor communication, etc. (1) When assessing the link between precarious employment and mental health risks, account must be taken of the absence of a universally accepted definition of precarious work in Europe. Furthermore, the assessment must take into account the following:

—

There is no automatic causal link between what is considered as precarious work in this opinion and poor mental health, but precarious work is one of the risk factors that can have a negative effect on workers’ mental health. The points raised in paragraphs (2) 1.3 and 2.6 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect this consideration.

—

At the same time the forms of work that this opinion appears to consider as precarious can also be a stepping stone to entering the labour market and gradually moving to more permanent employment. The points raised in paragraph 1.5 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect this consideration.

Outcome of vote:

In favour:	83
Against:	139
Abstentions:	15

AMENDMENT 6

Tabled by:

BLIJLEVENS René

DANISMAN Mira-Maria

MINCHEVA Mariya

PILAWSKI Lech

POTTIER Jean-Michel

VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/745

Precarious work and mental health

Point 1.4

Insert new point

Position: After new point 1.3 (see amendment 5)

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC agrees with the approach of the Commission (3) to prepare, in cooperation with Member States and social partners, a non-legislative EU-level initiative related to mental health at work that assesses emerging issues related to workers’ mental health. The EESC considers that further attention has to be paid at EU and national level as well as at workplaces to appropriate policies and/or actions to develop the primary prevention of work-related psychosocial risks with an organisational and collective approach where appropriate. There is, however, no need for proposing at the EU level specific legislation on preventing psychosocial risks. The points raised in paragraphs 1.11, 4.5.1, 4.5.4 and 4.5.4.3 of this opinion are in contradiction with or do not sufficiently reflect this consideration.

Outcome of vote:

In favour:	91
Against:	141
Abstentions:	11

(12) Texts adopted — Working conditions and precarious employment — Tuesday, 4 July 2017 (europa.eu)

(13) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work

(14) See https://resourcecentre.etuc.org/agreement/framework-agreement-work-related-stress and https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/imported/2005-00679-EN.pdf

(15) The numbering used here refers to the numbering of paragraphs as expressed in the SOC section opinion as submitted to the Plenary and included in the Members’ portal for the EESC Plenary of 26 to 27 April (changes to the numbering could result from the eventual adoption of these or any other amendments)

(16) See https://resourcecentre.etuc.org/agreement/framework-agreement-work-related-stress and https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/imported/2005-00679-EN.pdf

(29) COM(2021) 323 final

(1) See https://resourcecentre.etuc.org/agreement/framework-agreement-work-related-stress and https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/imported/2005-00679-EN.pdf

(2) The numbering used here refers to the numbering of paragraphs as expressed in the SOC section opinion as submitted to the Plenary and included in the Members’ portal for the EESC Plenary of 26 to 27 April (changes to the numbering could result from the eventual adoption of these or any other amendments),

(3) Communication on EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027 Occupational safety and health in a changing world of work COM(2021) 323 final.

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/43

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on democracy at work

(exploratory opinion requested by the Spanish Presidency)

(2023/C 228/06)

Rapporteur:	Reiner HOFFMANN
Co-rapporteur:	Krzysztof BALON

Request from the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union	Letter of 27.7.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	175/69/13

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

Over decades, European legislation has developed a robust system of worker participation in the workplace, based on the law and practices of the Member States and EU fundamental freedoms. A democratic world of work is a building block for further developing the European social model in a sustainable and competitive environment.

1.2.

Recent crises have shown that active citizens’ and workers’ rights are mutually reinforcing. Social cohesion is strengthened, the democratic fabric of our societies is more stable and society is less vulnerable to populistic and authoritarian positions.

1.3.

Mechanisms and legal instruments serving the purpose of democracy at work make companies more resilient, more economically successful and at the same time better able to deliver on employment and decent work. Democracy at work as a guiding concept should cover all workers and types of work as well as all workplaces, be they private, public or social in nature, irrespective of size, sector or other organisational aspects. The circumstances of SMEs should be considered. Empirical evidence shows that workers’ voices offer the flexibility and room for manoeuvre necessary at workplace level in order to adapt to structural changes.

1.4.

The fast-changing world of work is also an opportunity for more democracy. Employee participation and social dialogue need to feature more prominently in the public consciousness and be strengthened also across borders to make this possible. A reliable European legal framework guiding and making more effective national information, consultation and participation systems and supported by action programmes with predictable repercussions at national level are essential for this.

1.5.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the European Commission’s recent Communication on strengthening social dialogue as a basis for more democracy at work, as well as the statement that social dialogue is based on a vibrant culture of trust based on the specific role of social partners, while civil dialogue, recognised as a separated process, involves organised civil society organisations in a wider range of topics, shaping processes of transformation. However, it should be recognised that the labour market is changing, e.g. many workers are employed in small and micro enterprises, and at the same time in the European Union about 13,6 million (1) people are employed in social economy entities. All these workers and their employers should be fully covered by the institutional social dialogue.

1.6.

Over decades, European Works Councils (EWCs) have made a positive contribution to companies’ long-term economic, social and environmental objectives. To increase their potential and effectiveness their participation rights and resources need to be substantially improved: e.g. any circumvention or infringement of EWC participation rights should be sanctioned effectively and access to justice should be facilitated. In this context, the EESC welcomes the European Parliament’s recent resolution on the revision of the EWC Directive and calls on the Commission to take legal measures in a timely manner.

1.7.

Complementary to democracy at work based on law or social dialogue, there are other successful forms of democratic participation of workers that are much alive in the social economy, mainly in cooperatives.

1.8.

Technological innovations have led to new business models in the platform economy, which often involve precarious employment, especially for people in entry-level jobs and migrant workers. Access to collective representation is mostly non-existent or else insufficiently used. The EESC considers purposeful the aim of the current draft EU Directive on platform work to prevent bogus self-employment, in particular the definition of employers and employees, the reversal of the burden of proof. This would also strengthen the basis for giving workers a voice in the platform economy when adequate criteria for employment status are fulfilled. The EESC notes the Commission’s Guidelines on the application of Union competition law to collective agreements regarding the working conditions of solo self-employed persons. The EESC encourages the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU to highlight this aspect, in particular when adopting the Directive, and also to address these workers’ potential access to collective coverage in line with the Minimum Wage Directive.

1.9.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) is posing unfamiliar challenges to democratic standards in the world of work. Algorithmic data management has a huge impact on work organisation, working conditions and data security. The European social partners agree that it is critical that digital technology is introduced in timely consultation with the workforce and their representatives, in the framework of industrial relations systems, notably social dialogue and collective bargaining, so that trust in the process can be built. The EESC supports strengthening employees’ data protection rights in a way that secures workers’ collective rights and wants to see an adequate digital access to companies and their employees for trade unions in order to establish and to foster an effective social dialogue in the field of AI application in the workplaces.

1.10.

Good corporate governance means respecting human and labour rights as well as environmental objectives throughout the supply chain. Employers have to show that they view due diligence as an obligatory part of the management board’s risk management. Creating decent work worldwide should become an objective of sustainable corporate governance. The EESC therefore advocates defining the need for sustainable corporate governance within the European legal framework. Workers and their representatives, as well as civil society (environmental, human rights and consumer organisations), should participate systematically in this process.

1.11.

However, the EESC regrets that employee participation at company board level is not recognised as a key element of sustainable corporate governance. Therefore, the EESC supports appropriate efforts to establish a harmonised framework for employee participation on boards, taking into consideration differences between Member States, and to ensure that European company law does not result in avoidance or erosion of corporate participation in the Member States.

1.12.

More democracy in the world of work depends not only on having the necessary and appropriate legal bases, but also on the knowledge-based cooperation of all stakeholders, especially in the context of the challenge of the green and digital transitions. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) working regionally or locally in the field of information, education and empowerment, and academic institutions and experts from the liberal professions can also support such cooperation through targeted measures adapted to local circumstances, in concertation with the social partners and local authorities. Such activities should also be supported by European Structural Funds.

1.13.

The educative role of workplace participation could support democratic practice in a wider political and societal meaning. In this sense it is crucial to raise awareness and educate young people for democracy at work even before starting employment. Along with social partners, CSOs working in the field of education can play a complementary role and should be supported.

2. Democracy at work: socio-political relevance in Europe

2.1.

Exogenous crises and transformative challenges have become a permanent state. The EU institutions and the Member States must constantly put in place new effective response mechanisms that combine economic efficiency with social, environmental and political objectives.

2.2.

There are many normative and empirical justifications for more democracy in the world of work (2). The EESC has therefore long advocated for a balanced implementation of the concept of democracy at work and its key components such as vibrant social dialogue and a fair balance of rights and responsibilities in the workplace, which also includes the promotion of a culture of trust and cooperation between employers and workers, including workers’ participation. These components should be supported by a legal framework and social dialogue at all levels and good company practice.

2.3.

Democracy at work not only contributes to a resilient democracy, but is also key to sustainable economic competitiveness and prosperity. Workplace participation contributes to educating and training citizens in democratic practices, values and political culture. Those who feel taken into account in the workplace and who can participate in decision-making also do this in society and have a more positive attitude towards democracy.

2.4.

The EESC has consistently stressed that having a robust European framework and good worker participation practices (workers’ voice) (3) as a basis for trustful dialogue between management and workers at all levels (cross-border, national, local) is part of the basic legal framework of European democracy and is an important guide for a competitive, social market economy. This should apply to all workers and all forms of work at all workplaces, be they private, public or social in nature, irrespective of size, sector or other organisational aspects.

2.5.

A political consensus between governments, the social partners and civil society has anchored the workers’ voice in many pieces of European legislation over decades (4). This efficient resource must be fully implemented as a valuable component in all countries and companies, further strengthened and improved in the interests of economic success and social cohesion in Europe, also strengthened in cases where there are gaps in law or implementation, and should be further developed in line with changes in the world of work. Against this background, the EESC encourages Member States to evaluate at national level the state of play and develop initiatives for robust information and consultation frameworks.

2.6.

Workers’ voice in EU countries is characterised by multiple institutions, sometime ‘functional equivalents’ based on different labour relations systems, such as strong job and company-related information, consultation and negotiation rights, employee participation on boards, collective agreements at company, sectoral and cross-industry levels, binding outcomes of social dialogue as well as company cultures and capacities to manage change.

2.7.

The incoming Spanish Presidency’s request for an EESC exploratory opinion on democracy at work continues the noticeable trend whereby EU institutions and governments in EU countries are increasingly formulating ‘more democracy at work’ as a political goal for the ‘Future of Europe’. This can be seen:

—	In the Social Commitment made at the 2021 Porto Social Summit, European governments and social partners reiterated their commitment to advancing and strengthening autonomous social dialogue at European, national, regional, sectoral and company level (5).

—

The recent European Parliament report on democracy at work highlights that major changes arising from the European Green Deal and digitalisation must be implemented fairly and encourages the promotion of legal opportunities for employees to participate (6). In the same spirit, the European Parliament recently called with a broad majority for a revision of the existing EU Directive on European Works Council (7).

—	The Directive on adequate minimum wages in the EU requires all Member States to take measures to increase the coverage of collective bargaining, such as promoting the building and strengthening of the capacity of social partners.

—

In a recent proposal for a Council recommendation to strengthen social dialogue, the Commission stated that Member States should fully recognise and respect the specific role of social partner organisations in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognising civil dialogue as a separated process, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics (8).

—	The Social Economy Action Plan, adopted 2021, specifically commits to promoting social economy business models which have democratic and participatory governance as one of their key identifying features.

2.8.

In the same vein the EESC considers that a reliable and effective workers’ voice can be an essential prerequisite for ‘sustainable’ and economically successful corporate governance in the EU.

2.9.

The EESC is pleased to respond to the questions raised by the Spanish Presidency, namely

—	what contribution the participation of workers and their representatives in business management can make to a just social and green transformation;

—	to what extent is it necessary to further develop the existing legal framework for employee participation and involvement in company decision-making, including in multinational companies;

—	how should employees’ participation rights be strengthened in the context of digitalisation, which also covers the platform economy and data protection issues;

—	what impact do new technologies have on fundamental democratic rights such as worker participation.

2.10.

In addition, in this opinion, the EESC presents a reflection on other forms of democracy in the world of work.

2.11.

The EESC welcomes the Resolution on decent work and the social and solidarity economy adopted by the ILO at the June 2022 International Labour Conference, which highlights the fundamental role of social economy organisations in ‘consider the contribution of the social and solidarity economy to decent work, inclusive and sustainable economies, social justice, sustainable development and improving standards of living for all’, as well as the United Nations Resolution on promoting the social and solidarity economy for sustainable development of 18 April 2023 (9). These principal resolutions demonstrate that social economy organisations play an important role in developing democracy at work by an important contribution to more democracy and participation in the economy and the labour market; this should be reflected in order to cover the social economy organisations in the institutional social dialogue also at European level.

3. The EESC’s position on democracy at work

3.1.

The EESC believes that the social inclusion of all stakeholders, in particular the workers’ voice, as a key pillar of a business and of the economy, should be recognised and encouraged as one of the prerequisites for making businesses more ‘social’, more environmentally sustainable, and more competitive.

3.2.

The EESC has already highlighted the benefits of statutory employee participation tools at national and European level in numerous opinions adopted by a sizeable majority, stressing that:

—	democratic structures at work should be seen as a core element of the European social model (10);

—	social and civil dialogue at national and EU level is key to ensuring an economic, labour and social policy that helps boost people’s living and working conditions and makes businesses more competitive (11);

—	countries with well-established social dialogue institutions and effective industrial relations systems are better placed to achieve positive economic, social and environmental objectives;

—	effective worker involvement in business-related decision-making contributes positively to business success and to the implementation of digital, environmental and climate-neutral transition projects;

—	exploiting the full potential of innovation requires the involvement and motivation of workers (12); in this context, the workers’ voice within companies contributes to positive change;

—	the world of work is also a place for learning about democracy, especially for young people and entry-level workers, with the potential to prevent this group being left behind in the transformation process (13);

—	social economy entities such as cooperatives which work towards long-term goals and directly serve their workers and communities should be supported;

—

restructuring in all forms can be better anticipated and managed through the early participation of organised employee representatives (14) where this is provided for, including on boards, without hindering the necessary room for manoeuvre in decision-making in the event of company changes or changes in work organisation;

—	transfers of enterprises without heirs or facing insolvency to employees under a cooperative form could also be a way to restructure them into sustainable and democratically managed enterprises (15);

—	especially in times of transformation and crisis, involving workers and civil society on the basis of a vibrant culture of mutual trust promotes the better implementation and acceptance of structural and organisational change (16) and thus also boosts security and stability.

3.3.

The EESC stresses the value of involving workers in workplace innovation. Initiatives by the social partners to enhance the productivity and well-being of workers at workplace level should be promoted in a wider European context. The EESC welcomes the initiatives and research of Eurofound (17) and the European Workplace Innovation Network, and proposes that the EU take action to develop dialogue between the social partners and other stakeholders at all levels in the context of participatory approaches.

3.4.

The EESC has also demonstrated its conviction that sustainable economies require companies in which the various stakeholders work together and cooperate in seeking to achieve sustainable business opportunities, economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, and social balance. Hence the EESC’s call for a corporate governance model that promotes the creation of long-term values as a duty of executive directors through the pursuit of the long-term interests of the company and its stakeholders (18).

3.5.

The debate on further developing a European legal framework for sustainable corporate governance must take reference to resolutions, opinions and reports already adopted by the EESC, the European Parliament and other relevant sources such as social partner agreements. Consequently, the EESC calls on the Commission to consider in their further work programs a corporate governance framework which serves as a reference for more sustainable and democratic corporate governance which fundamentally provides an adequate expression of workers’ voice and for their representatives in company supervision and administration at all levels.

3.6.

The debate on further developing a European legal framework for sustainable corporate governance must make reference to resolutions, opinions and reports already adopted by the EESC and the European Parliament, and to other relevant sources such as social partner agreements.

3.7.

The starting point for European support for democratic participation in designing a forward-looking transformation must be existing skills, scientific and industrial infrastructure, and mobilising social economy cultures. In this way, local economies can be successfully connected to the global competitiveness of products and services.

4. Specific comments on the democratic development of the world of work

4.1. Ensuring and developing existing employee participation standards

4.1.1.

The promotion of democracy in the world of work must go beyond company-level participation rights to include sectoral and cross-sectoral collective bargaining and representation systems and social dialogue at all levels, as well as dialogue with civil society.

4.1.2.

The EESC has discussed the need to evaluate the current EU legal framework and how it should be implemented effectively in national law. This includes the intention to improve already existing provisions accordingly.

4.1.3.

For example, the EESC has discussed the need for an EU framework regarding workers’ participation when it comes to setting companies’ strategic course at board level, while respecting differences at national and business level (19).

—	The European Parliament report on democracy at work (20) sets out how such a European framework for workers’ rights to information, consultation and representation on boards could be designed.

—

Moreover, it is vital that the EU regulatory framework safeguards existing national participation rights, in particular the involvement of employees in company decision-making bodies. EU law, which regulates the cross-border transfer of a registered office or mergers and creates types of European company, must not bring about an avoidance or erosion of rights acquired at national level, such as board-level employee participation.

4.1.4.

The EESC has also discussed the need to consolidate EU law provisions on mandatory employee participation, on the basis of standards already achieved, and for the definitions of information, consultation and participation to be standardised (21).

4.1.5.

The case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU has recently confirmed that existing elements of employee involvement at company level, such as board composition, must also be taken into account when companies are transformed into a European legal form, such as a European company (SE) (22). EU law should ensure that this element is functionally comparable in the law of the EU Member States. This would create a reliable and legally certain basis for action for all parties involved.

4.1.6.

In order to increase the effectiveness of the work of EWCs, the EESC has already discussed improvements, in particular concerning the right to participate, the provision of necessary resources, the strengthening of enforcement measures, the clarification of definitions to prevent circumvention, and effective sanctions for businesses that do not comply with the relevant provisions (23).

4.1.7.

4.2. Requirements for participation in the platform economy

4.2.1.

The platform economy represents opportunities, challenges and risks in relation to work, coupled with precariousness and inequality (25), posing challenges to democracy at work. This particularly applies to opportunities for collective representation and the protection of collective rights (26), which to date have been reserved to those employed directly. Platform economy workers — largely people in entry-level jobs and migrant workers — often face greater challenges than others when it comes to working conditions and salaries; given that adequate criteria are fulfilled workers’ rights should therefore be extended to them and their voices included as part of the workers’ voice.

4.2.2.

The EESC considers purposeful the aim of the current draft Directive on platform work to prevent bogus self-employment. This would shift the burden of proof from workers to platforms and make protection under labour and social law available to platform workers, including representation rights and easier access to justice. The EESC notes the Commission Guidelines on the application of Union competition law to collective agreements regarding the working conditions of solo self-employed persons.

4.2.3.

The EESC reiterates its earlier opinion that cooperatives in particular are able to ensure democracy at work in the digital platform context (27). Moreover, the EESC supports the position of the European Parliament that cooperatives could constitute an important instrument for the bottom-up organisation of platform work (28).

4.2.4.

Since young people from vulnerable backgrounds make up 55 % of platform workers, it is crucial to educate them on democracy at work even before starting employment, so they can execute their rights and fight against discrimination. Along with social partners, CSOs working in the field of education can play an important role and corresponding projects should be supported.

4.2.5.

The EESC will further follow aspects of the workers’ voice in the platform economy and pay attention to the specific situation of self-employed platform workers and their coverage by collective bargaining.

4.3. Workers’ voice and the use of artificial intelligence (AI), and data protection at work

4.3.1.

As AI can have a significant impact on fundamental rights, non-discrimination and working conditions, its use should be based on a solid foundation of enforceable rules to protect workers from negative impacts. It also poses new challenges to democratic standards at work. The protection of privacy and the enforcement of the relevant laws should be a main focus. In addition, the monitoring, tracing and control of AI algorithms used at work must be ensured. This raises the question, for example, of how data subjects’ access to information is to be designed, so as to understand the functioning and impact of the algorithm on work organisation and working conditions (29).

4.3.2.

Social partners should be involved in all stages of the deployment and use of AI. Among other things, the European Social Partners’ Framework Agreement on Digitalisation of June 2020 explicitly highlights the need for proper anticipation and timely involvement of workers and their representatives at a strategic level (30).

4.3.3.

Big data is a key element of AI. AI systems therefore also need to comply with the principles of the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Article 88 of the GDPR imposes specific obligations on employers in order to protect employee data. In the EESC’s view, it should be examined whether, in view of the dynamic developments and increasing complexity of data processing, the existing provisions need to be improved in order to strengthen the necessary protection rights.

4.3.4.

The EESC wants to see an adequate digital access to companies and their employees for trade unions in order to establish and to foster an effective social dialogue in the field of AI application in the workplaces. It must be ensured that the EU GDPR is not used in practice as an obstacle to hinder the legitimate exercise of collective workers’ rights. Abuse must be prevented through appropriate sanctions (31).

4.3.5.

In addition to already adopted opinions the EESC will further deepen its view on the impact of AI in the world of work, and focus hereby also on the workers’ voice.

4.4. Participation in corporate due diligence throughout the supply chain

4.4.1.

As a sustainable growth strategy for the EU, the European Green Deal means that not only economic success, but also social and environmental goals are essential for businesses. Therefore common rules that ensure that corporations and their owners adhere to ‘good corporate governance’ should incorporate in a balanced way the role of all relevant stakeholders, workers’ voice included.

4.4.2.

Compliance with human and labour rights as well as environmental objectives along the supply chain is an important part of sustainable corporate governance. Creating ‘decent work’ worldwide must become a recognised target for business decisions (32). The EESC has therefore already recognised the need for a single EU-level regulatory framework for businesses (33). Supply chains should constitute a bigger part of risk management, including in the context of respect for human rights. It is therefore logical to place responsibility for them at board level.

4.4.3.

The EESC notes that not only employees with their trade unions and representative bodies, but also civil society interests such as environmental organisations and human rights and consumer protection bodies, can play a key role in monitoring due diligence. It therefore welcomes the proposed introduction of mechanisms to assess and monitor compliance with corporate due diligence. However, it notes with concern that no provision is made for dialogue between the social partners.

4.4.4.

The EESC has already suggested a binding legal framework on due diligence and corporate responsibility, taking into account the workers’ voice, must play an important role (34). It calls on the Commission, as part of the ongoing decision-making process, to lay down in the proposed legal text provisions on the mandatory and effective participation of both workers and civil society stakeholders in the due diligence process in line with their interests.

4.5. Further reflection on democracy in the world of work and direct forms of participation

4.5.1.

The participatory management approach is also of importance in areas with weakly developed forms of employee representation, such as start-ups, freelance businesses and many SMEs. This approach already plays a major role in social economy enterprises, especially in economically active CSOs and cooperatives. The EESC will promote the exchange of best practices in this field, particularly on the interaction between statutory and trade union employee participation and forms of direct participation as an element of participatory management.

4.5.2.

Complementary to democracy at work based on law and/or social dialogue, there are other successful forms of democratic participation of workers that are much alive in the social economy, mainly in cooperatives.

4.5.3.

In order to shape regional structural change and to create a green and social deal, the question arises as to how forms of democracy at work can dovetail with forms of participatory democracy beyond the company, involving society organisations such as environmental and social organisations in the regional and local context.

4.5.4.

Successfully implementing various forms of democracy in the world of work depends also on the knowledge-based cooperation of all stakeholders. CSOs working regionally or locally in the field of information, education and empowerment can support such cooperation through targeted measures adapted to local circumstances, in concertation with the social partners and local authorities. In this context, in some Member States’ CSOs, among them consumer and human rights organisations, can play a complementary role in empowering workers and push employers to exercise corporate social responsibility. Such activities should also be supported by European funds.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Commission presents Action Plan to boost the social economy and create jobs — 9.12.2021

(2) Benchmarking Working Europe 2019, Chapter 4.

(3) Taking into account different means and processes for involving workers and their representatives in the Member States, this opinion uses the umbrella term ‘workers’ voice’ where appropriate.

(4) With the involvement of social partners a body of almost 40 directives have been added to European secondary legislation, establishing a broad legal framework for informing and consulting workers and enabling them to participate; ETUI Facts & Figures.

(5) Porto Social Commitment 2021.

(6) European Parliament report A9-0331/2021.

(7) European Parliament resolution P9_TA/2023, 0028.

(8) Proposal for a Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union COM(2023) 38 final, p. 14.

(9) Resolution which is ‘recognizing the contribution of the social and solidarity economy to decent work and inclusive and sustainable economies, to the promotion of international labour standards, including fundamental rights at work, to the improvement of the standard of living for all and to social innovation, including in the field of reskilling and upskilling’

(10) OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 77.

(11) OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14.

(12) OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 1, point 1.1.

(13) EESC resolution on the European Year of Youth, adopted on 8.12.2021, points 2.13 and 2.14 (OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 1).

(14) OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 77, point 1.4 and OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14, point 5.5.

(15) OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 13, point 1.6.

(16) OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 2.6.

(17) European Company Survey 2019.

(18) OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 77, point 4.1, OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 1.11, OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14, point 5.1, OJ C 106, 31.3.2020, p. 1.

(19) OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 1.14 and point 3, OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14, OJ C 161, 6.6.2013, p. 35, point 4.2.2 and point 4.4.2.

(20) European Parliament report, A9-0331/2021.

(21) Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28) and Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29) should be taken as a benchmark;; see OJ C 161, 6.6.2013, p. 35, points 1.6 and 4.4.2.

(22) CJEU judgment of 18 October 2022, ref. C-677/20 (SAP), CJEU judgment of 18 July 2017, ref. C-566/15 (TUI).

(23) OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14, point 1.10.

(24) European Parliament resolution P9_TA(2023)0028.

(25) The platform economy and the disruption of the employment relationship.

(26) OJ C 290, 29.7.2022, p. 95.

(27) OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 38.

(28) EP-report: Platform Work Directive Report, recital (new) 39a.

(29) Labour in the age of AI: why regulation is needed to protect workers.

(30) European Social Partners Agreement on Digitalisation.

(31) ECA study (2021), Data Protection Law and the Exercise or Collective Labour Rights.

(32) OJ C 486, 21.12.2022, p. 149, point 1.8 and point 1.9.

(33) OJ C 486, 21.12.2022, p. 149, point 1.11.

(34) OJ C 443, 22.11.2022, p. 81, point 1.7 and OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 3.10.

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussion (Rule 74(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 3

SOC/746

Democracy at work

Point 4.1.3

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

—	The European Parliament report on democracy at work (2) sets out how such a European framework for workers’ rights to information, consultation and representation on boards could be designed.

—

—	The European Parliament report on democracy at work (2) sets out how such a European framework for workers’ rights to information, consultation and representation on boards could be designed.

—	Moreover, it is vital that the EU regulatory framework safeguards existing national participation rights, in particular the involvement of employees in company decision-making bodies.

Reason

As any form of corporate participation is based on national legislation or practices, European company law should in itself have no impact on participation systems. In any case no new EU-level regulation is needed to solve possible problems.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	98
Against:	130
Abstention:	20

AMENDMENT 4

SOC/746

Democracy at work

Point 4.1.5

Delete point

Section opinion

Amendment

The case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU has recently confirmed that existing elements of employee involvement at company level, such as board composition, must also be taken into account when companies are transformed into a European legal form, such as a European company (SE) (1) . EU law should ensure that this element is functionally comparable in the law of the EU Member States. This would create a reliable and legally certain basis for action for all parties involved.

Reason

This issue was not properly addressed in the Study Group since it is a highly complex legal question with a number of country-specific aspects. In this regard it is not for the EESC to draw conclusions from the CJEU judgment.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	100
Against:	136
Abstention:	15

AMENDMENT 5

SOC/746

Democracy at work

Point 4.1.7

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

These requests are also reflected in the European Parliament’s most recent resolution on the Directive on European Works Councils, which calls on the Commission to bring forward a proposal for a revision of the EWC Directive with a view to clarifying its objectives, definitions and procedures and to strengthening the right of workers’ representatives and trade unions to information and consultation, particularly during restructuring processes (1). The EESC notes the Parliament’s calls to improve the EWC Directive. It calls on the Commission to take measures in a timely manner, focusing on measures to promote the effective enforcement of European rights in business practice . The EESC also notes that on 11 April the Commission launched the first-stage consultation of European social partners on a possible revision of the EWC Directive in order to gather the views of European social partners on the need for and overall direction of possible EU action on improving the EWC Directive. The consultation will be open for six weeks (2).

Reason

There are clearly divergent views on the support for and usefulness of the resolution of the European Parliament. Therefore and for the sake of compromise the EP resolution could be taken note of. It should also be noted that on 11 April the Commission launched the first-stage consultation of European social partners on a possible revision of the EWC Directive in order to gather the views of European social partners on the need for and overall direction of possible EU action on improving the EWC Directive. The consultation will be open for six weeks.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	86
Against:	139
Abstention:	18

AMENDMENT 6

SOC/746

Democracy at work

Point 4.4.4

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC has already suggested a binding legal framework on due diligence and corporate responsibility, taking into account the workers’ voice, must play an important role (1) . It calls on the Commission, as part of the ongoing decision-making process, to lay down in the proposed legal text provisions on the mandatory and effective participation of both workers and civil society stakeholders in the due diligence process in line with their interests .

The EESC has already suggested a binding legal framework on due diligence and corporate responsibility, taking into account the workers’ voice, will play an important role (1).

Reason

The amendment justifies more precisely the aim of EESC opinions as regards corporate sustainable due diligence.

Regarding the fact that the Commission proposal on due diligence is pending in the legislative process reactions from the EESC are not useful. As regards the substance of the sentence the request for legal text provisions on mandatory participation cannot be supported because it would undermine the responsibilities of the management and owners of the company.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	89
Against:	148
Abstention:	11

AMENDMENT 1

SOC/746

Democracy at work

Point 1.6

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

Over decades, European Works Councils (EWCs) have made a positive contribution to companies’ long-term economic, social and environmental objectives. To increase their potential and effectiveness their participation rights and resources need to be substantially improved: e.g. any circumvention or infringement of EWC participation rights should be sanctioned effectively and access to justice should be facilitated . In this context, the EESC welcomes the European Parliament’s recent resolution on the revision of the EWC Directive and calls on the Commission to take legal measures in a timely manner.

Over decades, European Works Councils (EWCs) have made a positive contribution to companies’ long-term economic, social and environmental objectives. To increase their potential and effectiveness the EESC considers that there is need to further promotion of proper enforcement and guidance based on practical tools such as benchmarking with best practices . In this context, the EESC notes the European Parliament’s recent resolution on the revision of the EWC Directive and calls on the Commission to take appropriate measures to promote the proper enforcement of the Directive in a timely manner . The EESC also notes that on 11 April the Commission launched the first-stage consultation of European social partners on a possible revision of the EWC Directive in order to gather the views of European social partners on the need for and overall direction of possible EU action on improving the EWC Directive. The consultation will be open for six weeks (1) .

Reason

The European Works Councils Directive as recast in 2009 is fit for the purpose and there is no need to enter into a lengthy and cumbersome legal revision exercise. Instead, in the spirit of good cooperation, the enforcement of the Directive could be enhanced by joint efforts of social partners such as developing a code of practice. It should also be noted that on 11 April the Commission launched the first-stage consultation of European social partners on a possible revision of the EWC Directive in order to gather the views of European social partners on the need for and overall direction of possible EU action on improving the EWC Directive. The consultation will be open for six weeks.

Outcome of the vote: linked to amendment 5

AMENDMENT 2

SOC/746

Democracy at work

Point 1.11

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

Reason

While at the EU- level there is a comprehensive legal framework for information and consultation of workers, the participation systems are based on national legal frameworks and deeply rooted traditions. EU level regulation would undermine and stifle the national developments and interfere in national company law systems. This is an area where the best way forward also in the context of corporate governance is other than regulation, such as exchange of best practices and other means of spreading information.

As any form of corporate participation is based on national legislation or practices European company law should in itself have no impact on participation systems. In any case no new EU-level regulation is needed to solve possible problems.

Outcome of the vote: linked to amendment 3

(1) OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 1.14 and point 3, OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14, OJ C 161, 6.6.2013, p. 35, point 4.2.2 and point 4.4.2.

(2) European Parliament report, A9-0331/2021.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 1.14 and point 3, OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14, OJ C 161, 6.6.2013, p. 35, point 4.2.2 and point 4.4.2.

(2) European Parliament report A9-0331/2021.

(1) CJEU judgment of 18 October 2022, ref. C-677/20 (SAP), CJEU judgment of 18 July 2017, ref. C-566/15 (TUI).

(1) European Parliament resolution, P9_TA(2023)0028.

(1) European Parliament resolution P9_TA/2023, 0028.

(2) First-stage consultation of social partners (europa . eu)

(1) OJ C 443, 22.11.2022, p. 81, point 1.7 and OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 3.10.

(1) OJ C 443, 22.11.2022, p. 81, point 1.7. and OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 23, point 3.10.

(1) First-stage consultation of social partners (europa . eu)

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/58

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Social Imbalances Procedure

(exploratory opinion at the request of the Spanish Presidency)

(2023/C 228/07)

Rapporteur:

Justyna Kalina OCHĘDZAN

Request from the Spanish Presidency of the Council	Letter, 27.7.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	234/7/5

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) believes that the European Union and the Member States should develop in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable way in order to achieve upward convergence in these three areas, with a high level of respect for human rights. Developing these areas simultaneously poses a number of challenges.

1.2.

The EESC notes that in a context of multiple crises and potential future crises, it is necessary to rethink the EU social governance toolbox to achieve upward social convergence and reduce inequalities.

1.3.

Multiple crises and their long-term effects are putting upward social convergence at risk in the EU, with fiscal and macroeconomic governance and environmental governance being more developed and better coordinated than social governance. The EESC perceives the Social Imbalance Procedure (SIP) as an opportunity to improve the coordination of national efforts to achieve upward social convergence. It should also lead to better use of the current governance architecture in the EU.

1.4.

The EESC recommends implementing the SIP and further developing it as part of the EU and Member States’ integrated policy coordination system under the European Semester. It is important that the SIP complements existing monitoring processes and tools, and adds clear added value in terms of facilitating upward social convergence.

1.5.

The best way to implement the SIP is a step-by-step approach that, whenever appropriate, builds on and is embedded in existing procedures and systems for monitoring social outcomes based on the European Pillar of Social Rights and its Action Plan.

1.6.

The EESC proposes that social imbalances be defined as the critical situations identified by the social scoreboard and clear deviations from the path towards achieving the EPSR Action Plan targets. The quality of the methodology for measuring social outcomes should be improved so that full account can be taken of the EPSR principles and multi-year trends.

1.7.

The EESC recommends that the SIP be integrated into the European Semester, throughout its different phases. The Commission and the Council should use the Joint Employment Report, the Country Reports and ad hoc in-depth reviews to identify and address the social imbalances. The country-specific recommendations, in a separate point in the preamble and in the recommendations themselves, should address the social imbalances described in the country report. The recommendations should encourage Member States to implement specific reforms which, according to the Commission’s analysis and to Member States’, national social partners’ and civil society organisations’ assessments, are most likely to improve the situation in the areas identified as critical. In response, after consultation with social partners and civil society organisations, the Member State concerned should propose the initiatives and reforms to be implemented with a view to improving the critical situations identified. Such a plan could also include an assessment of the consistency between the initiatives included and the macroeconomic and budgetary policies followed by the Member State in question, so as to ensure the right balance between the economic, social and budgetary dimensions.

1.8.

2. General comments

2.1.

This opinion is a response to the Spanish Presidency’s request for an exploratory opinion by the EESC on the Social Imbalances Procedure (SIP). The EESC’s task is to answer the questions: (i) What does the EESC believe is the best way to develop the SIP as a specific mechanism for detecting and monitoring the growing social inequalities in the European Union? (ii) What is the best way to embed the SIP in the current institutional structure and schema of the European Semester while reducing the administrative burden caused by its possible introduction? (iii) How can the European Pillar of Social Rights be linked to the monitoring system resulting from the creation of the SIP? (iv) How can the current economic governance process be used to strengthen coherence and harmony between macroeconomic and social aspects of the European Semester?

2.2.

In order to achieve a just green and digital transition and to mitigate the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union and its Member States should pay particular attention to the causes of social inequalities and aim to balance economic and social development, which favour social inclusion, on the basis of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) (1).

2.3.

At the Porto Social Summit in May 2021, Belgium and Spain proposed expanding the revised social scoreboard with an alert mechanism that could trigger follow-up actions and discussions at Commission and ministerial level, building on the approach to macroeconomic imbalances contained in the Alert Mechanism Report (AMR) (2).

2.4.

The discussion aiming to strengthen the social dimension of the European Semester by introducing a social imbalances procedure (SIP) continued in the EPSCO Council in October and December 2021, and the French Presidency included it in the debate and agenda for the first half of 2022. The conclusions of the discussions were mentioned at the EPSCO Council on June 2022.

2.5.

In the context of implementing the EPSR, the EU and Member States have agreed on an EPSR Action Plan with three headline targets and secondary targets. Each Member State also set its own targets in this respect. Additionally, implementation of the EPSR in Member States is monitored using the social scoreboard (3) methodology with headline and secondary indicators. On the basis of this monitoring, Member States’ positions in relation to the average are determined in the fields covered by the indicators. This allows the areas of the EPSR that require action in specific countries (socially critical situations) to be identified.

2.6.

The European Semester (4) is the process of coordinating EU and Member States’ policies on instruments for achieving economic, social and environmental objectives. The Semester also takes into account the EPSR, the plan for implementing it and the monitoring of social outcomes.

3. Towards upward social convergence

3.1.

The EESC believes that in a context of multiple crises, potential future crises as well as economic and social imbalances, it is necessary to rethink the EU social governance toolbox to achieve upward social convergence and reduce inequalities (5). In 2022 more Europeans disagreed or strongly disagreed with the sentence that people get what they deserve in their country (37 %) than agreed (35 %) (6).

3.2.

In the EESC’s view, simultaneously achieving economic, social and environmental objectives as part of comprehensive upward convergence poses a major challenge. In recent years, procedures have been developed for fiscal and macroeconomic governance and for environmental governance to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as has coordination between them. The social dimension of EU governance lags behind when it comes to the development of these areas and coordination between them.

3.3.

At a time of crisis relating to energy, migration, war, climate and the post-COVID period, Europe needs strong economic and social leadership, both at EU and at Member State level. The EESC therefore recommends implementing the SIP as a monitoring and coordination mechanism, which would help to meet better social and economic objectives while contributing to social convergence across the EU.

3.4.

The European Commission and the Member States should consider making existing rules for funds allocation (including the ESIF, RRF and others) more flexible so that they can be quickly adapted to current societal challenges and critical situations identified, inter alia, in the implementation of the SIP. COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, cost of living crises and climate and migration crises all call for better national and, whenever appropriate, EU responses to the long-term effects of crises and new types of exclusion. The rising cost of living is currently the most pressing concern for 93 % of Europeans, with poverty and social exclusion the most pressing concern for 82 % (7). Another Eurobarometer survey shows that 78 % of Europeans believe that overall public spending on key social policies should increase (8).

4. Replies to questions from the Spanish Presidency

4.1.

The EESC proposes that social imbalances be defined as the critical situations identified by the social scoreboard and clear deviations from the path to achieving the EPSR Action Plan targets. The quality of the methodology for measuring social outcomes should be improved so that full account can be taken of the EPSR principles and multi-year trends. As regards measuring the progress to achieve the EPSR Action Plan Targets, only reliable and comparable indicators should be considered.

4.2.

4.3.

The SIP aims to improve coordination between the EU and the Member States in achieving upward social convergence in accordance with the EPSR principles. The EESC assumes that it has already been partly implemented within the framework of the EPSR Action Plan and its 2030 targets and the monitoring of social outcomes. However, the EESC is concerned that the achievement of these objectives will be hampered by the lack of social investment and reforms in those Member States identified as being in a critical social situation by the Social Scoreboard. These situations put the achievement of the EPSR Action Plan targets and upward social convergence at risk and should therefore be given particular attention within the SIP.

4.4.

The EESC believes that the SIP should be given the same importance as the SGP or MIP. The SIP can further improve what has already been achieved in social governance by making more effective use of existing processes and ways to measure social convergence and, where appropriate, developing new ones. The MIP and the SIP should be coordinated and not overlap.

4.5.

The EESC points out that the European Union and the Member States have different competences for shaping social policy on work, education and health and social protection, which are covered by the EPSR. The main competences and responsibilities in this area are with the Member States, understood as governments and local and regional authorities as well as various stakeholders such as trade unions, employers’ organisations and civil society organisations. As a result of the division of competencies between the EU and the Member States, the European Union is undertaking many initiatives in these areas relating to coordination, regulation and finance, within the framework of cohesion policy and its social priorities.

4.6.

In the EESC’s view, implementation of the SIP is possible in the current legal situation in the EU. It follows that the EU has important social tasks to carry out, and can do this through declarations (EPSR and Action Plan), recommendations, financial instruments (e.g. social conditionality and social priorities of cohesion policy) and coordination instruments (the European Semester and monitoring of social outcomes based on the EPSR). This approach takes into account specific competences at different levels as well as the role of the various stakeholders, i.e. employers’ organisations, trade unions and civil society organisations. SIP can support policy-makers in their efforts to achieve upward social convergence and reduce inequalities. It should take into account the relevant social dimensions defined jointly by Member States and the various stakeholders.

4.7.

If properly linked to existing mechanisms, such as the European Semester and in particular the social scoreboard, the SIP can help build on existing achievements, i.e. the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan and the monitoring of social outcomes based on the EPSR.

4.8.

Taking the above conditions into account, the EESC considers the introduction of changes in the principles guiding the European Commission when preparing the joint employment report (JER), country reports (CR) and country-specific recommendations (CSR) within the Semester should be the first step in the development of the SIP.

4.9.

The joint employment report and the country reports should include a separate sub-chapter on social imbalances that put upward social convergence at risk, mentioning the areas identified as critical in the social scoreboard monitoring. This will therefore only apply to Member States where such areas have been identified.

4.10.

4.11.

The country-specific recommendations, in a separate point in the preamble and in the recommendations themselves, should address the social imbalances described in the country report. The recommendations should encourage Member States to implement specific reforms which, according to the Commission’s analysis and Member States’, national social partners’ and civil society organisations’ assessments, are most likely to improve the situation in the areas identified as critical. In response, the Member State concerned should propose, after consultation with social partners and civil society organisations, the initiatives and reforms to be implemented with a view to improving critical situations identified. Such plan for initiatives and reforms could also include an assessment of the consistency between the initiatives included and the macroeconomic and budgetary policies followed by the Member State in question, so as to ensure the right balance between the economic, social and budgetary dimensions.

4.12.

The EU should implement new and better-financed instruments for communicating the SIP and the Semester recommendations directly to the populations of the Member States to create transparency and impact on the situations in the Member States.

4.13.

To prevent downward convergence, Member States subject to the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) should be required to adopt a reform and investment plan in the areas identified as critical. In this situation, the Member States in question should have the right to renegotiate the spending plans of other funds, including where appropriate the RRF, in agreement with the Commission.

4.14.

The first step in the development of the SIP, as proposed above, has the least possible burden in terms of additional analytical and administrative work for both the EU and the Member States. It does not propose additional reporting for all Member States, nor does it add new monitoring and reporting procedures to those already in place.

4.15.

The current social scoreboard monitoring system developed for the EPSR has already been established and is based on a complex methodology for interpreting a large set of indicators. They correspond to the main areas of the EPSR. Progress in achieving the EPSR Action Plan targets is also monitored. The SIP should be embedded in the existing European Semester process and make use of existing indicators (Social Scoreboard).

4.16.

In the next step in the implementation of the SIP, the scope of measurement and indicators should be developed in line with the definition of social imbalances adopted in the context of upward social convergence.

4.17.

The future analyses and consultations on the SIP should include answers as to the extent to which social scoreboard monitoring indicators correspond to all EPSR principles and the extent to which, and how, the areas identified as critical can hamper upward social convergence.

4.18.

The overall condition of Member States, including in the economic dimension, has a fundamental impact on the scale and dynamics of the social problems affecting their inhabitants and thus also upward social convergence. If good social performance requires good economic performance, then the coordination mechanisms that guarantee the latter (SGP and MIP) will be crucial for the former. The first step proposed by the EESC in the development of the SIP takes into account the above approach, which underpins the logic of fiscal and macroeconomic governance within the EU.

5. Challenges and priorities for SIP development

5.1.

Further development of the SIP as part of the EU and Member States’ integrated policy coordination system under the European Semester, but also other EU instruments, should be analysed and discussed in greater depth by the Commission, the Council, Member States, social partners and civil society organisations, with the aim of rolling it out in parallel with the reform of fiscal and macroeconomic governance (9).

5.2.

The political, administrative and economic feasibility of implementing and developing the SIP should be examined in more detail. Care should be taken here not to duplicate procedures, so as to keeping bureaucracy to a minimum, and to genuinely involving the social partners and civil society organisations in this process.

5.3.

The EESC stresses that the role of EPSCO in the SIP should be enhanced in order to strengthen the political endorsement of the results of the instrument. The participation of EPSCO could be ensured through the adoption of Council conclusions on the SIP at the end of the process.

5.4.

The EESC stresses that it is crucial, for the implementation of the SIP, to draw specific practical conclusions from the monitoring of social outcomes and the extent to which the EU’s social objectives have been achieved in the Member States.

(a)

The first conclusion concerns coordination between fiscal and macroeconomic governance and the SIP. Member States subject to excessive deficit procedures and/or at risk of macroeconomic imbalances, and with critical areas in the social scoreboard and which have deviated from the path towards meeting social targets should receive a clear signal that the EU is supporting social reforms and investments in identified critical social areas. It is at the discretion of each Member State to propose the most appropriate solutions and approaches for remedying critical areas.

(b)

The second practical conclusion concerns the application of the first conclusion in the context of the European Semester (10). The European Commission should include, in a separate sub-section of the Country Reports, an analysis of social imbalances based on monitoring of social outcomes and progress towards social objectives. It should also take them into account in the country-specific recommendations, both in the preamble and in the recommendations themselves.

The role of EPSCO, social partners and civil society organisations should be secured in this process.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) OJ EU C 286, 16.7.2021.

(2) Belgian-Spanish Non Paper ahead of the Porto Social Summit.

(3) Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/european-pillar-of-social-rights/overview.

(4) EESC opinion on The European Semester and Cohesion policy — Towards a new European strategy post-2020 (OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 39)

(5) OJ EU C 14, 15.1.2020.

(6) Eurobarometer, 2023, Fairness, Inequality and Inter-Generational Mobility.

(7) EP Autumn 2022 Survey.

(8) Eurobarometer, 2023, Fairness, Inequality and Inter-Generational Mobility.

(9) EESC opinion on the European Pillar of Social Rights (OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10).

(10) EESC opinion on European Semester and Cohesion policy — Towards a new European strategy post-2020 (OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 36)

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/64

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the competence and skill development in a context of the dual green and digital transition

(exploratory opinion requested by the Swedish Presidency)

(2023/C 228/08)

Rapporteur:	María del Carmen BARRERA CHAMORRO
Co-rapporteur:	Justyna Kalina OCHĘDZAN

Request by the Swedish Presidency of the Council	Letter of 14.11.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	149/0/0

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) notes an increase in labour market inequality as a result of the digital transformation. In particular, and due to job automation, a reduction in the number of medium-skilled, medium-wage jobs can be observed in favour of an increase in low-paid, low-skilled jobs. Employment in higher-skilled, high-paid jobs is also expected and will increase skill intensity (1). The EESC also notes that labour and skills shortages are becoming increasingly evident in a wide range of sectors. The EESC considers that effective access to training is key in order to help businesses and workers meet this challenge and it is also vital in helping to prevent labour market inequality as a result of the digital transformation.

1.2.

The EESC recognises that the transitions should not be achieved through dismissals or drastic labour market measures, and urges the European Commission and the Member States to put in place systems that favour internal rather than external transitions, whereby companies train their workers in the necessary skills, thereby avoiding dismissing workers who lack such skills.

1.3.

Education is a human right throughout each individual’s life. In line with the European Pillar of Social Rights, the EESC therefore urges the Member States to establish rights to lifelong learning (taking into account national industrial relations systems and educational and training practices), which provide all citizens with learning opportunities for personal and professional development, making it the main principle guiding education and training policies.

1.4.

The EESC calls for access to full qualification to face the challenges of the dual digital and green transition to be a real right for all, based on validated and certified training in digital and green skills and environmental sustainability. To this end, skills training needs to go hand in hand with paid training leave, taking into account national legislation and agreements.

1.5.

The EESC considers that the initiatives the European Commission has taken to date on digital and green skills have been insufficient, and that the involvement of the social partners has been minimal. The Committee therefore calls for the EU Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 to include effective strategies to improve training and adapt the skills of employed and unemployed workers in all sectors, regardless of the size of companies, and to involve the social partners in this connection. At national level, the national social partners should continue to implement the European Framework Agreement on Digitalisation (2). The EESC wishes to stress the role of collective bargaining as a tool for shaping and adapting training programmes.

1.6.

The EESC calls for training on digital and green skills and competences to be certified by competent authorities, not merely validated.

1.7.

The EESC urges the Commission to create an annual indicator of the number of adults and employees, particularly young people, who are participating in training in green skills, environmental awareness, and ecological and environmental responsibility by 2030, taking into account simple and tailored tools for SMEs.

1.8.

The EESC calls for efforts to promote and facilitate the adjustment of existing learning programmes to include the skills needed as part of the dual digital and green transition.

1.9.

The EESC considers it essential to begin strategically monitoring the capacity to anticipate future training needs for the Member States’ labour markets and societies in order to avoid green and digital gaps and to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness.

1.10.

The EESC notes that there are wide disparities when it comes to basic levels of digital skills, with disadvantaged groups and a high number of adults, especially older people, being particularly affected. The digital divide exists, and digital skills programming should therefore be more sensitive to the training of older people and other disadvantaged groups, including by adapting training to their needs where necessary, in order to ensure that no one is left behind in the dual digital and green transition. Special attention should be paid to the inclusion of women in such training, in view of the gender gap that exists in terms of access to training, in order to help women adapt to the digital and green transitions.

1.11.

2. General comments

2.1.

We find ourselves in a period of change and transitions. Successive crises are coinciding with major challenges for businesses, the workforce and citizens, such as the rapid changes in the labour market brought about by the dual digital and green transition. In parallel, a range of new occupations is emerging linked to the dual digital and green transition, existing jobs are evolving, and new ones are being created. Workers must be given the tools to manage and cope with these changes, while enabling businesses to remain productive and competitive.

2.2.

These challenges are evident at all levels and stages of working life. As such, there are challenges for both young people and adults, as well as for low-skilled, medium-skilled and highly skilled people alike. It is noted that some historically low-skilled jobs currently require digital training, as the way that these jobs are accessed is being transformed. Moreover, women are particularly affected by this, as the digital gender gap continues to widen. There is a move away from finding work through tradition channels, such as word of mouth, to offers that can only be accessed online or via dedicated digital platforms. This means that training in basic digital skills must reach the whole population.

2.3.

The EESC notes that one of the effects of the COVID-19 crisis has been an increase in inequality in the labour market, particularly as a result of the increase in teleworking (3). For example, those working in certain occupations, which can typically be associated with low-skilled and low-paid work, are usually unable to benefit from the option to telework. In contrast, people in certain higher-skilled occupations, particularly office work, that tend to enjoy higher wages, often have the possibility to telework. This is why teleworking must include the possibility of developing digital and environmental skills so as not to increase inequalities and allow those who cannot telework to also access this type of training for teleworking.

2.4.

The EESC notes a growing imbalance in the labour market associated, in particular, with the ‘big digital divide’. This phenomenon has been identified as a reduction in the number of medium-skilled and medium-wage jobs, due to the automation of jobs, in favour of an increase in low-paid, low-skilled jobs and high-skilled, high-paid jobs. The EESC emphasises that rising inequalities put our welfare state at risk.

2.5.

The EESC notes that Europe is facing a major demographic challenge and a shrinking working-age population. This is serving to fuel the pronounced labour and skills shortages across all sectors of the economy and at different skill levels. As a result, there is a need for people at all skill levels in order to address these gaps. In order to address these shortcomings, it is necessary to ensure that workers are up-skilled and re-skilled, and to promote the participation of inactive and unemployed people in the labour market through accompanying policies. In this respect, it is also necessary to consider the approach of migration policies.

2.6.

The EESC recognises that the transitions should not be achieved through lay-offs or traumatic labour market measures. The system should reward internal rather than external transitions, i.e. transitions whereby companies train their workers in the necessary skills and avoid dismissing workers who lack such skills, which is particularly difficult for SMEs, which require the necessary financial support from the Member States for the transition.

2.7.

The EESC notes that, with the increase in teleworking, the labour market is becoming more flexible globally. This means that it is impossible for European workers to compete on low costs, since the low cost of living and the weakness of the currencies of other countries compared to European currencies make our workers less competitive. As such, the only option will be to compete by ensuring that European workers offer higher and better skills and competences.

2.8.

It is important that workers in different forms of contractual relationships have access to training to help them maintain their skills and employability in the face of these new labour market realities.

2.9.

The EESC notes that the time period between a new skill emerging and it being in high demand on the labour market is becoming increasingly short. This requires strong adaptability, pro-activity and a necessary reduction in red tape when it comes to accessing training and capacity-building in public institutions. It also emphasises the importance of updating education and training curricula promptly and effectively in response to new and emerging skills needs, and as part of the need for stronger cooperation between governments, the social partners, education and training providers and civil society.

2.10.

The EESC notes that, due to the large number of routine and non-complex jobs in European labour markets, 55 % of adult workers in the EU do not make full use of their skills at work and 28 % have higher qualifications than they need in order to do their job. It should be noted that the ‘waste’ of the potential of human capital results in significant wage penalties and reduces the well-being of those employed. Cedefop reports stress that recruitment difficulties or skills mismatches can, among other things, be a reflection of the poor quality of jobs (4).

2.11.

The challenge of digitally transforming the economy should not only focus on how to increase basic digital skills for all workers, but also on digitalising existing skills and facilitating the acquisition of more advanced digital skills. Efforts need to be focused on transforming classic skills for use in the digital world. The concept of digitalised skills is cross-cutting in nature and refers to the ability to combine digital aspects with other skills. This requires sufficient skills and knowledge of the digital world, as well as sufficient training in specific professional skills.

2.12.

The green transformation is no less of a challenge for the labour market and skill-related requirements. Whole industries will see their modus operandi change as a result of the need to decarbonise and the move to adapt business models to sustainability needs linked to the European Green Deal (5). This document stresses that the industrial strategy should pay attention to the impact on the labour force, as well as to training, re-skilling and up-skilling. These impacts should be analysed together with the social partners, always with a view to anticipating and avoiding unintended effects on employment and the economy.

2.13.

The digital and environmental transitions constitute a ‘revolution’ comparable to the industrial revolution of the early 20th century. All professions and organisations are or will be impacted by digitalisation and the measures that will need to be taken to ensure that industrial, craft-based, agricultural, commercial and service production are as clean as possible. Special attention should be paid to SMEs and micro-enterprises, which should be supported in both human and financial terms.

2.14.

The EESC believes that achieving a just green transition in all sectors of the industry concerned will require training and education on green skills. There are three main challenges:

—	adapting existing skills to the needs of sectors as they decarbonise, as well as to the challenges of new energy sources;

—	training in skills for all sustainable and green jobs;

—	raising awareness in order to reduce the carbon footprint in the workplace.

2.15.

In order to achieve a just transition, and in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights, equal access to quality training and lifelong learning, both within and outside the workplace, should be ensured for all people when it comes to digital and green technologies for existing and future professions. In accordance with the Member States’ national and sectoral practices, effective support should be given to workers to help them improve their level of training in these skills (work-life balance, training leave, etc.); businesses should also receive financial support for this purpose.

3. Specific comments

3.1.

The dual digital and green transition is changing existing jobs and creating new ones. The quality of jobs and fair working and wage conditions are a prerequisite for a just transition that allows for long-term digitalisation and decarbonisation, accompanied by sustainable growth of the economy, productivity and innovation. The value of skills as a factor in the competitiveness of companies is also crucial for framing re-training initiatives and for effective access to training for workers. The only way to achieve these objectives is through continuous lifelong learning on new digital and digitalised skills, as well as green skills.

3.2.

Professional development for all ages plays an essential role in ensuring a just dual digital and green transition. In this regard, the EESC calls for the EU Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 and the proposals for Council Recommendations on digital skills and digital training to include effective strategies for the training and up-skilling of employed and unemployed workers across all sectors, regardless of company size. Training on digital skills should be adapted to the needs of each profession and sector, while at the same time respecting work-life balance.

3.3.

The EESC recognises that learning new skills and adapting skills to new digital and green challenges is a shared responsibility of society as a whole. In this regard, the European Commission notes that 90 % of on-the-job training is financed by companies (6). National states, civil society organisations, and businesses, both through their sectoral associations and individually, should design strategies for boosting digitalisation and tackling the green challenge that support up-skilling. Good examples of national funding mechanisms and strategies for training in collective agreements should be thoroughly analysed and shared as good practices (7).

3.4.

The EESC welcomes the European framework agreement on digitalisation signed between ETUC, Business Europe, SGI Europe and SMEUnited (8), which states that ‘[w]here an employer requests to a worker to participate in a job-related training that is directly linked to the digital transformation of the enterprise, the training is paid by the employer or in line with the collective agreement or national practice. This training can be in-house or off-site and takes place at an appropriate and agreed time for both the employer and the worker, and where possible during working hours. If the training takes place outside of working time, adequate compensation should be arranged’. The EESC calls for these principles to be taken into account when developing the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027.

3.5.

The EESC recognises that a just transition means ensuring that everyone has access to opportunities to improve their basic digital skills relating to daily tasks, and to understand cybersecurity, digital communication, data security, personal data protection, privacy online and the dangers of disinformation. In this connection, the EESC calls for training on digital skills and competences to be recognised and certified by the competent authorities.

3.6.

The EESC shares the Council recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability (9) with regard to digital micro-credentials, but points to the need for these to be complementary to full diplomas and certifications. Furthermore, the EESC notes the need for their quality to be guaranteed and certified, not only validated, so that they can also play an important role in validating formal and non-formal learning.

3.7.

The EESC recognises that, in order to ensure a just transition, skills training needs to be linked to paid training leave, in line with national legislation and national agreements. This should enable workers to participate in career development programmes and courses linked to new green and digital jobs, while allowing for a work-life balance for individuals.

3.8.

With regard to the European Commission’s European sustainability competence framework (10), which ‘responds to the growing need for people to improve and develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes to live, work and act in a sustainable manner’, the EESC calls on the Commission to put in place specific solutions for jobseekers and workers to give them effective access to quality and inclusive vocational training to help them acquire the skills needed for the dual green and digital transition. In this connection, the Committee calls for the effectiveness and quality of training to be boosted in order to ensure high-quality, inclusive, equitable training for all.

3.9.

The EESC calls on the Commission to create, by 2030, an annual indicator of the number of adults and employees, particularly young people, participating in training on green skills, environmental awareness, and ecological and environmental skills and responsibility, taking into account simple tools tailored to SMEs.

3.10.

Current training programmes need to be adapted to new challenges. The EESC therefore calls for efforts to promote and facilitate the adjustment of existing learning programmes in order to include the skills needed as part of the digital and green transitions, and for teaching staff to be trained on these subjects. Training on environmental responsibility and climate awareness should be included as part of vocational training. Evaluating and certifying training courses is crucial. The EESC invites the European Commission to encourage the Member States to put in place the necessary measures to ensure that jobseekers and workers have access to high-quality, evaluated and certified training.

3.11.

Information and good visibility regarding all sectors of activity are required. Good practices could be identified on the basis of what already exists in Europe and in some EU countries in terms of information or jobs and skills observatories in order to assess future needs, raise awareness and involve workers and businesses with a view to jointly building future-oriented scenarios for action and attracting new talent.

3.12.

The EESC considers it essential to start strategically monitoring skills needs in order to anticipate the future training needs of the labour market and the societies of the Member States, in order to avoid green and digital gaps and to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness. The social partners, civil society and public employment services should have a leading role in analysing and identifying demand. They should be involved in anticipating skills needs and should be aware of how the training on offer matches the skills required by companies, the labour market and trends, including at local and regional level.

4. Digital and green skills and competences

4.1.

The EESC proposes including sustainable development in education and training policies and programmes, such as the European Education Area and the Digital Education Action Plan, in line with target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals, among other things. This means including sustainable development education and training in Erasmus+, the ESF+ and Horizon Europe, and creating synergies between these programmes.

4.2.

The EESC stresses that investing in people and expanding access to lifelong learning opportunities is as important as investing in green and sustainable digital technologies.

4.3.

The EESC calls on decision-makers to improve support for teachers and educators when it comes to introducing digital, green and sustainable technology in learning environments, by investing in their initial and ongoing professional development and in their own digital and green skills and competences.

4.4.

The EESC calls for investment in interdisciplinary and impartial longitudinal research on the different aspects of digital technologies in education, linking the sciences of education, pedagogy, psychology, sociology, the neurosciences, engineering and computing sciences in order to continue exploring how children’s minds are developing in the digital world.

4.5.

The EESC calls for a comprehensive approach to digital strategies that promote basic skills development as a cornerstone of social cohesion.

4.6.

The EESC welcomes the European Year of Skills and draws attention to the approach that involves developing digital and green skills from a broader perspective. However, closing basic digital skills gaps is crucial, considering that only 54 % of Europeans have such skills, while under Europe’s Digital Decade targets, the aim is that 80 % of Europeans will have at least basic digital skills by 2030. The EESC recognises the need to support skills development in order to meet the needs associated with the deployment of new technologies, such as big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity.

4.7.

The EESC believes that the development of digital citizenship is a prerequisite for ensuring the active participation of all learners in society. In the context of the dual transitions, particular attention should be paid to the gender gap in access to training for women. The majority of the population cannot be left behind due to the lack of a gender approach. To this end, the European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp 2.0) should be promoted more effectively so that it is accepted by different learning providers and education and training stakeholders, in order to promote the wider set of competences needed to become a digital citizen.

4.8.

The EESC notes that gaps in access to digital resources and the development of digital skills are linked to the socioeconomic environment. Regional and socioeconomic gaps should be closed by ensuring targeted support for the most disadvantaged groups and paying attention to rural areas.

4.9.

The EESC calls for principles linked to interoperability and open protocols to be established in the digital tools used, in order to foster a more democratic online learning space as well as alternative digital tools, other than the long-standing and traditional ones, that allow for the co-creation of learning and content.

4.10.

The development of digital skills should be monitored through the European Semester and the Recovery and Resilience Facility in order to ensure that any funding used to close digital infrastructure gaps is supported by appropriate learning policies to boost digital skills.

4.11.

The EESC recognises the difficulties experienced by civil society organisations and SMEs in adapting to the digital transition owing to insufficient resources for digitalisation or inadequate training. More funding opportunities, peer learning activities and the exchange of digital resources in the sector should be facilitated, considering how civil society organisations serve as facilitators and providers of education and training for all. In addition, access to open-source software should be promoted in order to ensure free access, the co-creation of online spaces in a democratic way, and the promotion of alternative digital resources that open the online space up to all.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/more-employment-higher-skills-demand

(2) https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/reports_and_studies/2020-06-22_agreement_on_digitalisation_-_with_signatures.pdf

(3) https://www.businessinsider.com/service-industry-work-from-home-remote-madrid-london-paris-berlin-2021-2?r=US&IR=T

(4) https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/3092_en.pdf

(5) European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal.

(6) Adult Learning Statistical Report, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8337&furtherPubs=yes

(7) For example, the financing of Scuola Edile in the construction sector in Italy through the collective agreement for the sector, or the Fondi Interprofessionali, specific funds to finance training activities for SMEs, as agreed by the social partners in the collective agreements.

(8) http://erc-online.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Final-22-06-20-with-signatures_Agreement-on-Digitalisation-2020.pdf

(9) https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9242-2022-INIT/en/pdf

(10) https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/greencomp-european-sustainability-competence-framework_en

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/71

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the European Disability Card

(exploratory opinion from the European Commission)

(2023/C 228/09)

Rapporteur:

Ioannis VARDAKASTANIS

Referral	Exploratory opinion from the Commission, 20.1.2023
Legal basis	Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	135/2/3

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the flagship initiative of the European Commission which will launch a European Disability Card, enabling the right to free movement and residence across the EU for persons with disabilities by facilitating the mutual recognition of disability status for card holders. The European Disability Card has been a long-standing request and a high priority of the disability movement, given the ongoing limitations to the freedom of movement rights that the non-recognition of disability upholds.

1.2.

The EESC underlines that the non-mutual recognition of disability hinders the availability of support measures for persons with disabilities, implying a direct denial of the realisation of their rights to travel and/or move to other EU countries.

1.3.

The EESC understands that the improvement of this freedom of movement achieved by the mutual recognition of disabilities would enhance the construction of a common European identity and lead to greater consistency for persons with disabilities, creating awareness among service providers about the lack of accessibility and improving access in the long run. This will benefit them, at the same time, by increasing the number of visitors.

1.4.

The European Disability Card will also strengthen the collaboration between different national authorities and government agencies to raise awareness of disability issues, giving certain persons with invisible disabilities a tool to facilitate access to advantages and services without having to explain their disabilities. It will also ease the provision of services to persons with disabilities from Member States that do not have a national disability card by providing a document that they can use also at national level as a proof of disability.

1.5.

The EESC underlines the importance of complementing the launch of the European Disability Card with measures, both at European and national level, aimed at improving the general accessibility of built environments, transport, services and goods in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), regulations on transport accessibility (3) and related accessibility standards.

1.6.

The EESC is pleased that the Commission is proposing a legislative initiative for the European Disability Card, and calls for the European Commission to propose a regulation, as it is a more appropriate instrument to ensure agility in the application and to avoid differences in implementation at national level.

1.7.

The EESC stresses the importance of including in the European Disability Card the scope of access to all forms of services, benefits and discounts already granted at national level, accepted by all services offering preferential conditions or adaptations to persons with disabilities, whether provided by public or private entities.

1.8.

The EESC recommends that the European Disability Card provide the possibility to grant access to benefits linked to public social policies and/or national social security systems on a temporary basis when a person with a disability has moved to a Member State to study or to work, at least throughout the process of getting the disability re-assessed and certified.

1.9.

While the recognition of disability through the European Disability Card does not imply the homogenisation of the disability assessment models among Member States, it compels Member States to improve current systems based primarily on a medical approach to be more in line with models that abide by the UNCRPD.

1.10.

The EESC believes that the card must be in physical form with digital capabilities, fully accessible and with a standardised ID size, including information about the personal assistance and/or accompanying person for the owner of the card.

1.11.

The EESC suggests that the European Disability Card legislation must include an EU-level, fully accessible website, with an easy-to-read version and sign language availability, available in all EU languages, providing practical information for every country. It must also include EU-wide and national awareness-raising campaigns in all EU languages for the general public, potential card users and service providers.

1.12.

The EESC supports the proposal to develop the new legislation for the EU Parking Card together with the proposal for a European Disability Card. Nevertheless, it calls for the Commission to take into account that both cards must remain physically separate in all cases.

1.13.

The EESC stresses the importance for EU institutions to maintain close collaboration with persons with disabilities, as well as EU-level, national, regional and local representative organisations of persons with disabilities (DPOs) in the development, execution and later assessment of the European Disability Card.

1.14.

The EESC understands that the European Disability Card is fully in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (4) and protects the personal information of the user. It asks the Commission to guarantee a high level of protection of this data, together with security and anti-counterfeiting measures, through the proposed legislation in the design and use of the European Disability Card.

2. General comments

2.1.

The EESC notes that European citizenship status, as observed by Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, entails the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (5). For persons with disabilities, this right is protected by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), ratified by the European Union and the 27 Member States, in Article 18, determining the liberty of movement, freedom to choose their residence and nationality, on an equal basis with others. Understanding disability as a series of impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others (6), it is the responsibility of society as a whole, in particular through national and European public policies, to protect and effectively enable the realisation of this right.

2.2.

Under this framework, the provision of support, assistance, accessibility measures, specific services, reasonable accommodation, positive actions and other forms of benefits to persons with disabilities are the tools through which the equal enjoyment of rights is accomplished and barriers are overcome. Hence, the non-recognition of disability that hinders the availability of these support measures implies a direct denial of the realisation of the rights of the 87 million persons with disabilities living in the EU to travel and/or move to other EU countries.

2.3.

The EESC is pleased that the Commission is proposing a legislative initiative for the European Disability Card, and strongly recommends that the European Disability Card be established through a regulation, applicable in all Member States in a rapid, effective and homogeneous manner. A regulation is a more appropriate instrument to ensure agility in the application and to avoid differences in implementation at national level. The legislation cannot have the character of recommendation, as that would not allow for the card to have universal and homogeneous applicability. In the case of a directive, there would be a high risk of an undefined extension of the time needed to transpose it, with potential situations where European Disability Cards have an active status in some Member States but other EU countries do not have proper legislation applying its benefits. On the other hand, a regulation would have immediate effect in every Member State.

2.4.

The European Disability Card, facilitating the removal of barriers for persons with disabilities to move freely in the EU, would hence work and have the characteristics of a European Disability Passport, allowing the identification of and the subsequent access to all the rightfully deserved services and benefits.

2.5.

The EESC believes that the pilot project launched between 2016 and 2019 in eight Member States showed the feasibility of the card and the opportunities it brings to users, how it enables easier mobility by granting access to beneficial conditions on particular services already available to persons with disabilities of the host Member State.

2.6.

The assessment of the pilot project (7) developed in 2021 detailed this effectiveness. For instance, the use of the card boosted participation of persons with disabilities in the culture and leisure sectors, cross-border mobility increased and many users improved their tourism experiences abroad.

2.7.

Nevertheless, the assessment also showed that users requested greater ambition and coverage of more sectors, including the transport sector, which was limited. Also, awareness raising campaigns were deemed highly necessary so potential users could better understand the new possibilities and service providers could recognise the card and the discounts and services it entailed.

2.8.

The assessment report clearly expresses the opportunities but also the requests from persons with disabilities and the potential gaps the European Disability Card may highlight if the sectors covered are limited. Hence, the EESC highlights the importance of granting access to all forms of services, benefits and discounts already granted at national level for users of the European Disability Card, accepted by all services offering preferential conditions or adaptations to persons with disabilities, whether provided by public or private entities. It believes that the legislation should not set a limited list of sectors but apply to all services of the EU single market, as listing would entail many exceptions, maintaining most of the current obstacles and limiting its effectiveness.

2.9.

The EESC understands that, regarding the coverage of benefits linked to public social policies and/or national social security systems such as direct economic support, provision of personal assistance, support for students or work-related benefits for companies when hiring employees with disabilities, the European Disability Card should provide the possibility of granting such services on a temporary basis when a person with a disability has moved to a Member State to study or to work, at least throughout the process of getting the disability re-assessed and certified. This will mean that persons with disabilities moving to another Member State for a job or to study (e.g. Erasmus+ programme) will have the possibility to access any support required to work or study on an equal basis.

2.10.

The EESC highlights that the European Disability Card is fully in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and protects the personal information of the user, given that the use of this document to access services and benefits safeguards the person from being obliged to show and inform about personal data, in particular the disability assessment and personal health information.

2.11.

The European Disability Card proposal should include the launch of an enforcing and monitoring system, in order to ensure its smooth and effective implementation, together with a structure to channel and manage complaints and requests from users.

2.12.

The EESC understands that the recognition of disability through the European Disability Card does not imply the homogenisation of the disability assessment models among Member States. Nevertheless, it compels Member States to improve current systems based primarily on a medical approach to move towards models that abide by the UNCRPD. According to the recent European Parliament research on Disability assessment, mutual recognition and the EU Disability Card, there is a strong consensus on the need to improve the adoption of shared principles and greater harmonisation on disability assessments, disability definitions and mutual recognition. Also, it understands that existing assessment systems have focused more on individual characteristics than environmental ones, relying heavily on medical knowledge or tests of individuals functioning out of context rather than a more holistic approach that considers people’s actual life situations (8).

3. Specific comments

3.1.

The EESC believes that, concerning the format, the card must be physical, with digital capabilities — for example, a QR code and/or electronic chip linking to the disability assessment details would be a positive addition. This physical card must be completely accessible, with braille description, and a standardised ID size.

3.2.

The European Disability Card project must include an EU-level website that provides practical details for every country, such as where to get the card and how it works. The EU website should be available in every language and must be accessible at the highest level of conformance (AAA) of the Web Accessibility Guidelines (9), with easy-to-read formats and sign language availability, as should the national websites and the full process of acquiring the card.

3.3.

The European Disability Card should also include information about the personal assistance and/or accompanying persons for the owner of the card, in order to include them within the scope of the benefits and support whenever it is applicable. This information can be expressed with a concrete symbol or mention in the physical card.

3.4.

The EESC believes that the use of the European Disability Card must be voluntary, with it being codified in the law that each person with a disability can decide themselves if they want to apply for the card and it should never be an obligation to hold such a card to prove a disability.

3.5.

The EESC urges the Commission to provide a funding instrument to set up the European Disability Card in all EU Member States including the EU-wide website. Afterwards, continued funding for the printing and issuing of the card, staff, communication and maintenance of the website and related tools such as possible mobile applications must be ensured. This could be done either through a continuation of the EU funding instrument and/or national funding streams.

3.6.

Communication and awareness raising about the European Disability Card is crucial to make sure it reaches all the potential beneficiaries and service providers. The launch of the card should be paired with EU-wide and national awareness-raising campaigns for the general public, for potential card users to apply and for service providers to join the scheme so it can reach its full potential, in all EU languages, easy-to-read and sign-language formats, to ensure accessibility for all. Particular effort must be made to reach those persons with disabilities who may have more difficulties accessing information about the existence and benefits of and the processes involved in acquiring the card, such as persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities and those who have a limited support system, as is the case for refugees with disabilities. To better reach Ukrainian refugees with disabilities, there should also be communication in Ukrainian. This campaign has to be followed up with regular communication to update card holders and the general public on new additions to the card scheme and benefits of the card in general to ensure this EU project is highly visible.

3.7.

The EESC highlights the relevance for the EU institutions of maintaining close collaboration with persons with disabilities, as well as EU-level, national, regional and local representative organisations of persons with disabilities (DPOs). The project should be carried out with the full involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations. This should happen both at policy level to develop the card and executive level to implement and distribute it, as well as to communicate about it. The Commission should organise yearly exchanges on challenges, progress and good practices among Member States, involving persons with disabilities and DPOs, to improve the scope and use of the card over time.

3.8.

The implementation of the European Disability Card should include a process of data collection on anonymised information about beneficiaries, disaggregated by gender and age.

4. EU Parking Card

4.1.

The EESC understands the importance of updating the legislation harmonising the characteristics and functioning of the EU Parking Card. The different formats of the card implemented at national, regional or even local level still imply obstacles and malfunctioning for users. Nevertheless, its use is of paramount importance for many persons with disabilities, in particular as it is the only solution that allows access to restricted urban areas, given public transport is often no alternative due to lack of accessibility.

4.2.

The EESC believes the format, characteristics and issuing procedure of the EU Parking Card should be harmonised, in a form which is binding for Member States and clearly communicated to card users. The controls on fraudulent use of the card and illegal use of parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities should be strengthened, and harder security and anti-counterfeiting measures should be implemented along with higher and more effective fines against misuse and forgery. The awareness-raising campaign should also be aimed at the general public as regards tackling the illegal use of reserved parking spaces.

4.3.

The legislation on the EU Parking Card should further harmonise the rules on eligibility and the issuing procedure, in a form which is binding for Member States and clearly communicated to card users. It can also facilitate the exchange of good practices between the national authorities by starting a Commission working group on the subject, allowing ideas to develop at EU level.

4.4.

The development of the new legislation for the EU Parking Card, together with the proposal for a European Disability Card, must take into account that both cards must remain physically separate in all cases. Not all persons with disabilities who are potential holders of the disability cards also drive a vehicle and, for practical reasons, the parking card has to stay in the parked vehicle, while the European Disability Card should be carried by the user.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70).

(2) Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (OJ L 327, 2.12.2016, p. 1).

(3) OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 1; OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1; OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 1; OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, p. 18; OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14; OJ L 356, 12.12.2014, p. 110; OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1; OJ L 42, 13.2.2002, p. 1.

(4) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

(5) OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 47 Article 20, 2. (a).

(6) United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3.

(7) European Commission. 2021. Study assessing the implementation of the pilot action on the EU Disability Card and associated benefits. Final Report https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8407&furtherPubs=yes

(8) European Parliament, Disability assessment, mutual recognition and the EU Disability Card. Progress and opportunities. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies PE 739.397 — November 2022.

(9) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/76

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the initiative on virtual worlds, such as the metaverse

(exploratory opinion at the request of the European Commission)

(2023/C 228/10)

Rapporteur:	Martin BÖHME
Co-rapporteur:	Hervé JEANNIN

Referral	20.1.2023
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
	Exploratory opinion
Section responsible	Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI)
Adopted in section	19.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	153/1/2

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is convinced that the metaverse and the development of virtual worlds are likely to have a drastic impact on the way we live together. The metaverse is a highly interconnected digital universe (virtual space) that uses the internet, avatars and software agents and binds them together to create a new physical and virtual world. This has implications for the business environment, working conditions and the development of civil society. These changes will bring with them both opportunities and risks that society will need to address. There is still a need for progress with regard to acceptance of the use of these new technologies, increasing safety for all kinds of workers.

1.2.

From the EESC’s perspective, it is important to ensure that the next generation of the internet is open and connected. The metaverse is built upon a foundation of interconnected virtual worlds, which are created using various technologies such as 3D modelling software, Web 3.0, augmented/virtual/extended reality, artificial intelligence/machine learning, and distributed computing. Organisations can envision how these technologies can improve their business models, but they must address critical questions, such as how to evaluate market trends, source capabilities, measure engagement, and adapt businesses to stay competitive. Opportunities and challenges are further detailed in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, and some specific industrial examples are set out in paragraph 3.10. There is a need to continuously analyse whether the legislation currently in force is sufficient to regulate virtual worlds. The EESC reiterates the recent position of the European Parliament and stresses the importance of correctly determining the employment status of those involved in virtual worlds and ensuring that they are considered either employees or self-employed, depending on their actual working conditions.

1.3.

The development of the metaverse requires careful consideration by the legislator to ensure a safe environment. Ongoing collaboration among stakeholders is necessary to ensure that the metaverse benefits society. However, virtual worlds such as the metaverse also pose risks, especially for children and vulnerable groups. Platform operators need to put in place strict control mechanisms to filter and remove harmful content and safeguards to prevent harassment and abuse.

1.4.

The metaverse can also impact working conditions and health and safety. It is important to ensure that adequate measures are put in place in order to ensure sufficient information about these issues, including through social dialogue and collective bargaining, to ensure the safety of workers and provide access to training to improve competencies and skills. The EU has to guarantee that existing legislation that applies in the real world is also respected in the virtual world and that, where necessary, appropriate measures are taken to address specific needs for regulating the metaverse.

1.5.

The use of the metaverse in industry today, as far as the EESC is concerned, is focused on optimising operations, gathering data and improving performance. Digital twins have proven to be a valuable tool for companies to achieve these goals. The metaverse must provide solutions to unsolved problems or enable products to be manufactured at lower cost and in less time, improve quality, reduce risk and increase efficiency.

1.6.

The metaverse could potentially have a positive impact on the environment and climate change by enabling remote working on a new level, reducing the need for physical travel and reducing carbon emissions. In addition, the metaverse can be used to simulate and test sustainable practices, such as renewable energy systems and smart cities, before implementing them in the physical world. However, the energy consumption and carbon footprint of the technology that powers the metaverse must also be considered. The expansion of virtual worlds will further increase global energy demand. This will increase the need for green energy generation.

1.7.

The EESC sees the need to address issues of taxation of activities in the metaverse already today. Fiscal issues in the metaverse are challenging, as traditional tax models may not be appropriate and new approaches may be needed to collect fair and effective taxes.

2. General comments

2.1.

The next generation of the internet will be open and interconnected, a digital enabler for commerce and society. The technologies associated with the metaverse — augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), extended reality (XR) and digital twins — are capable of accelerating engagement, socialisation, collaboration and experiences, offering users new immersive ways to access products and services.

2.2.

Organisations have an opportunity to envision how the next generation of the internet will improve their products and services. This includes considering the impact of the metaverse on commerce, how AR can enhance training, how to effectively use 3D modelling and digital twins, and how entertainment can apply VR. However, the emergence of new virtual worlds such as the metaverse also raises several critical questions for organisations that require urgent attention. Firstly, they must envision appropriate opportunities and evaluate the market, customer needs and trends to remain competitive. Secondly, they need effective processes to source capabilities, including partnerships and outsourcing. Thirdly, measuring the impact of engagement and experience is crucial in order to continually improve performance and customer satisfaction. Lastly, organisations must adapt their business models to new technologies, markets, and customer expectations in order to stay competitive.

2.3.

It is necessary to consider how virtual and physical worlds will be balanced to ensure the responsible construction of the metaverse. It is essential to ensure that the metaverse is a safe environment for consumers and aligns closely with the ‘open’ vision of the next iteration of the internet. Consumers must be prepared for its use and receive training; for children and teens this should take place preferably already in school. Additionally, it is crucial to consider whether technology can advance quickly enough to build the metaverse of our imagination. These issues require ongoing dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders, including industry, policymakers, social partners and civil society networks, to ensure that the development of the metaverse benefits society as a whole.

2.4.

The EESC points to possible risks, especially for children and vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities and minorities. Because the metaverse takes place in the virtual world, offenders can more easily maintain anonymity and spread malicious and harmful messages to other users with impunity. This can lead to cyberbullying. The metaverse may contain potentially harmful or inappropriate content that is unsuitable for children. It is important that platform operators put in place strict control mechanisms to filter and remove such content. It could also be problematic that intensive use of the metaverse could mean an inactive lifestyle. It is the political task and responsibility of the EU to define and monitor the legal safety conditions for virtual worlds.

2.5.

The EESC stresses that virtual worlds can have an impact on working conditions and health and safety. There is a need to continuously analyse whether the legislation currently in force is sufficient to regulate virtual worlds. The EESC reiterates the recent position of the European Parliament and stresses the importance of correctly determining the employment status of those involved in virtual worlds and ensuring that they are considered either employees or self-employed, depending on their actual working conditions (1). It is important to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to guarantee the safety of workers and that the same standards are applied as in the real world. Social dialogue and collective bargaining are therefore essential to ensure these measures. It is also important that workers are properly trained and informed to ensure that they can work safely and effectively in virtual worlds. Lifelong learning is more than necessary. Competency screening throughout a person’s career is essential to meet training needs (upskilling and reskilling). Here too, social dialogue has the task of offering a collective approach to allow each individual worker access to such competency screening and to the training needed to improve competencies and skills and to contribute to building European autonomy in the field of virtual worlds.

2.6.

The EESC considers that virtual worlds like the metaverse will have an impact on the environment and resource consumption. On the one hand, they can consume a significant amount of energy, especially when hosted on high-performance servers. This can lead to an increased demand for electricity and thus an increased carbon footprint. On the other hand, however, virtual worlds may offer the potential to be used as a substitute for real experiences and interactions. This can have a positive impact on resource consumption, especially if people travel less and use fewer physical products. The EESC sees the need for regulatory requirements to ensure that virtual world operators take measures to reduce energy and resource consumption. This includes using renewable energy such as solar or wind power, optimising servers and hardware to reduce energy consumption, and promoting recycling and reuse of hardware and equipment.

2.7.

The EESC believes that European values and a human-centred philosophy must inspire the rules and governance of virtual worlds. For this reason, Europe should take a dominant position in the development of the metaverse. It is the task of the EU regulator to act, as far as possible, to find a good balance at international level with regard to the interoperability of standards, which must be set in a cooperative way with all relevant stakeholders, including the social partners. Particular attention should be paid to the social dimension and especially to young people with regard to the side effect of the metaverse. We also need to avoid geographical imbalances and inequalities due to differences in digital infrastructure across Europe.

2.8.

Taxation of businesses in the metaverse is a complex challenge, as the traditional concepts of geographical boundaries and physical locations are no longer sufficient. The determination of taxable income, assessment of digital assets and delineation of business lines requires a realignment of the basis of taxation. The creation of appropriate regulatory mechanisms to ensure fair tax practices is also essential.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The metaverse’s building blocks

3.1.1.

From a technical standpoint, the metaverse is built upon a foundation of interconnected virtual worlds, where each world may represent a distinct environment or experience. To enable interaction and communication between users within the metaverse, various protocols and standards are used, such as the Open Metaverse Interoperability Protocol (OMI), which allows for seamless interaction between different virtual worlds. Other technical components include networking protocols, user identity systems and artificial intelligence algorithms. The metaverse’s technology stack has four core building blocks: (1) content and experiences, (2) platforms (such as game engines), (3) infrastructure and hardware (including devices and networks), and (4) enablers (such as payment mechanisms and security). Ten layers span these components, providing the critical building blocks on which all metaverse experiences are based.

3.1.2.

Finally, the metaverse also involves economic and commercial components, such as virtual currencies, marketplaces, and systems for buying and selling virtual goods and services. These components are designed to facilitate commerce and value exchange within the metaverse, and they may rely on blockchain and other decentralised technologies to ensure transparency and security.

3.2. Opportunities

3.2.1.

From the EESC’s perspective it is worth noting that the future of the metaverse is comprised of multiple dimensions, including consumer, enterprise and industrial metaverses. (i) The consumer metaverse serves as the recreational space where individuals can engage in virtual-reality gaming and social interactions. (ii) The enterprise metaverse provides a platform for co-designing with customers. (iii) The industrial metaverse acts as the portal for manufacturing products.

3.2.2.

The industrial metaverse holds significant potential for European companies looking to optimise their operations, gather data and improve performance. The use of digital twins in the industrial sector has proven to be a valuable tool for companies to optimise their operations, gather data and improve performance, for example by designing without physical prototypes.

3.2.3.

For individuals, the seamless nature of transitions between physical experiences and interactions and their virtual and multimodal enhancement opens an endless scope of possibilities. The metaverse is a great lever for recruitment, onboarding, training without risk, and the provision of collaborative and immersive remote work environments that attract the future talent that the industry needs to develop.

3.3. Challenges

3.3.1.

The EESC’s assessment of the current situation is that acceptance of the use of these new technologies must still progress. The necessary increase in the level of maturity required by the combination of numerous technologies, the evolution of infrastructures, computing capacity and communication networks are also prerequisites for a deployment at scale of this new internet for consumers and citizens.

3.3.2.

The metaverse poses urgent challenges that cut across firms, their employees, independent developers and content creators, governments and consumers. Most of the workforce will need to be reskilled to take advantage of rather than compete with it, and cities and countries have to establish themselves as hubs for its development and will need to join the global competition to attract talent and investment and also bind workers permanently. Social dialogue and collective bargaining have the task of providing all necessary opportunities for workers involved in changing work environments.

3.3.3.

The EESC underlines that at the societal level, a variety of stakeholders will need to define a road map toward an ethical, safe, and inclusive metaverse experience. Guidelines may also be necessary around issues including security, ethics and regulatory compliance, physical health and safety, sustainability, and equity and fairness. The requirements for data protection and the implementation of the European General Data Protection Regulation in the metaverse also pose a special challenge. The extent to which existing requirements are still sufficient must be examined.

3.3.4.

Considerations about the allocation of virtual space in the metaverse are of great importance as they determine who has access to certain areas and content and who does not. The large platform operators such as Facebook, Google and Microsoft will play an important role in shaping the metaverse as they already have a strong presence in the virtual world and have the necessary resources to provide the infrastructure. It is important that these companies follow transparent and fair rules for access to the virtual space in order to create an open and diverse virtual world. In addition, smaller market players must also be provided opportunities to participate in value creation through virtual space.

3.3.5.

Users are reporting increasing levels of offensive and undesirable behaviours including harassment of users, sexualisation of avatar interactions, data exploitation and unregulated gambling, instances of bullying, presentation of graphical sexual content, racism, threats of violence, and grooming of minors (CCDH, 2022). Moreover, addiction to simulated reality and privacy and mental health issues also appear as key concerns among users worldwide (Statista 2020).

3.4.

Talents: building metaverses for businesses requires a special kind of competencies. We may also require new roles such as component developers, infrastructure providers, service developers, and virtual hosts. Europe must strive to become once again a community of welcome for researchers and engineers and to train their successors. Up-skilling and re-skilling of the existing workforce, in collaboration with universities and other educational institutions, must become a priority.

3.5.

Tools: in the development of the metaverse, there is a critical need for tools that can create content for multidimensional worlds and embed programming inside objects. These tools will be essential in the creation and distribution of content and services in the metaverse. Additionally, these tools will need to be accessible to a broad range of creators and users, from hobbyists to professional designers.

3.6.

Ecosystems and models: new markets and platforms may be required to source live objects such as NFT or entire metaverses. These items may be offered as products or services, but the pricing, ownership, and business models are yet to be determined. To ensure consistency, standards will need to be established to guide the process.

3.7.

The EESC stresses that it is crucial to consider new sharing and licensing mechanisms that will enable the creation and distribution of content and services while also ensuring the protection of intellectual and industrial property and the privacy and security of users. The design of the metaverse must respect trademarks, copyrights and other licences and forms of intellectual and industrial property.

3.8.

From a technological and societal point of view, one of the main challenges in deploying the metaverse at scale is standardisation. Many protocols, standards and rules must be established in relation to cybersecurity, storage and protection of personal data, protection of individuals, and the fight against cyber-stalking, cybercrime and disinformation. The European Union must have a strong role to play in order to not let these be set by other geographical areas. The European Union must therefore take part in the international consortia in charge of their development.

3.9.

The gaming industry has been at the forefront of organising online communities. It is also where many people, especially children and young people, come into contact with virtual worlds for the first time. The EESC therefore advocates that this industry in particular should be held accountable and involved in the development of consumer protection standards.

3.10. Current use cases for virtual worlds in industry

3.10.1.

The EESC points to the calculations made by the car manufacturer Renault, which announced in November 2022 that its Industrial Metaverse would enable savings of EUR 780 million at various stages of the production cycle. By 2025, an additional EUR 320 million in savings could be achieved, as well as EUR 260 million in inventory savings, a 60 % reduction in vehicle delivery times and a 50 % reduction in the carbon footprint of its production plants.

3.10.2.

In healthcare, Pfizer is using virtual reality training solutions to improve compliance with clinical trial protocols. Trainees are trained through a realistic, immersive experience in a virtual laboratory where they can interact and experiment safely, in close to real-life conditions. Pfizer is already using similar technologies to train its field operators at production sites. Compliance with the industry’s strict protocols and regulations, both in research and production, is significantly improved by employees who have completed these immersive training sessions. In addition to this example, the metaverse can bring about far-reaching changes in access to health care and in the quality of care by helping to overcome deficits in care, especially in rural and remote areas.

3.10.3.

With regard to the aeronautics and space sector, Airbus and Boeing are already using the digital twin concept, the foundation of the industrial metaverse, as a future platform to create a 3D replica of their new aircraft and production systems to support engineering and simulation activities.

3.10.4.

In the financial sector, several banks and insurance companies are enhancing their customer experience and interaction with immersive and metaverse solutions. AXA, for example, purchased a virtual plot of land on a Web 3.0 platform to interact with new customer groups and to build a virtual agency in the long term. Allianz uses augmented reality to increase customer awareness.

3.10.5.

The EESC notes that the Consumer, Products, Retail and Distribution (CPRD) industry is probably where we have seen the most recent metaverse and Web 3.0 initiatives. Use cases range from 3D virtual stores and immersive social shopping to avatars, branding and marketing, new community engagement and new loyalty programmes based on NFTs and Web 3.0 technologies.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221212IPR64513/digital-workers-better-working-conditions-and-protection-of-rights

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/81

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the transition to a long-term sustainable transport system

(exploratory opinion requested by the Swedish Presidency)

(2023/C 228/11)

Rapporteur:	Stefan BACK
Co-rapporteur:	Mateusz SZYMAŃSKI

Referral	Swedish Presidency, 14.11.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Exploratory opinion
Plenary Assembly decision	14.12.2022
Section responsible	Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society
Adopted in section	12.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	159/0/1

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The transition to a long-term sustainable transport system must be carried out in a way that makes citizens and business — including both industry and the transport sector — buy into both the objective of a 90 % emission reduction in the transport sector by 2050 and the ways and means used to get there.

1.2.

To achieve this, the transition must be implemented in a way that makes citizens and business see it as acceptable financially, from a social viewpoint and in practice, and therefore be ready and willing to support it actively. If that does not happen, there is a serious risk of not only failure, but at worst of social unrest.

1.3.

In our view, in order for the transition to succeed, the following conditions must be fulfilled:

—	business must feel that they are not burdened with excessive costs and that they will retain competitiveness, not only inside the EU;

—	employees must experience the transition as acceptable and be given the possibility to adapt to new working conditions in a socially acceptable manner;

—	citizens both in agglomerations and rural areas must be granted accessibility and mobility at a reasonable cost and under good general conditions.

1.4.

While there seems to be general agreement about the 2050 objective, the ways and means so far foreseen to get there appear less consensual. This is for instance the case regarding heavy-duty transport, where it appears that electrification possibilities are very limited and availability of alternative fuels insufficient.

1.5.

Use of renewable energy in transport should take into account the different types of renewables and their different sources in order to be independent of selected suppliers and countries. Dependencies related to raw materials and components used in the production of electric cars must also be taken into account.

1.6.

Developing multimodality is essential to get the best out of each mode, including the new zero-emission modes of transport. Digitalisation, capacity optimisation and coordination will help make transport work as a coherent system.

1.7.

Transport infrastructure, and in particular infrastructure for the distribution of alternative fuels, investment and efficiency in infrastructure use are a prerequisite for changes in transport, including with regard to transport accessibility, use of clean fuels, integration of modes of transport, implementation of innovations and new modes of transport. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) underscores the problem of coherence between the timeline for deployment of alternative fuels and hydrogen infrastructure and the time limits set for implementation of the TEN-T network, and the silence of EU legislation regarding rural areas not covered by the TEN-T.

1.8.

To enable the various countries to develop transport sustainably, it is needed to take into account their specific characteristics and preferences.

1.9.

The sustainable development of transport, as set out in EU documents, may be jeopardised by external factors, but the intended changes must be encouraged in order to ensure that the results are achievable in an acceptable manner.

1.10.

Socially sustainable transport must be accessible, inclusive and affordable to avoid the problem of mobility poverty. The EESC believes that public transport has a key task in the transformation process. Its inclusive nature makes it possible to achieve both environmental and social objectives.

1.11.

The transformation will not succeed without employee participation, currently in short supply in the sector. It is therefore important that the transport sector becomes known for high-quality jobs which would make working in transport more attractive. Social dialogue and collective bargaining are key in this regard.

1.12.

The EESC underscores the importance of wide consultations with all concerned and of awareness-raising at all stages of the transition.

2. Background

2.1.

The Swedish Presidency has requested an exploratory opinion regarding the transition to a long-term sustainable transport system.

The opinion should be seen against the backdrop of the ambitious objectives of the Green Deal — 90 % reduction of the CO2 emissions of transport by 2050 and 55 % by 2030 — which start being implemented through the Fit for 55 package. Getting there will also improve safety.

2.2.

As agreed, a 55 % CO2 reduction for cars and a 50 % reduction for vans is to be achieved by 2030 and a 100 % reduction for new cars and vans by 2035. The Commission is to propose allowing vehicles with CO2 neutral fuels after 2035 and assess the social and economic effect of the agreement in 2026.

Further key proposals relevant for the transport part of the Fit for 55 package where trialogue agreements have been reached concern emission trading, which includes road, aviation and maritime transport, and a review of the directive on renewable fuels and the Regulation on infrastructure for the distribution of renewable fuels (AFIR).

2.3.

A proposal for a revision of the Regulation with guidelines for the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) aiming at more rapid and efficient implementation of the network and promoting sustainability, a communication on city mobility and a proposal on IT communication were presented in December 2021. A common approach on the TEN T proposal was agreed in the Transport Council of Ministers in December 2022.

2.4.

The Commission work programme for 2023 includes a greening freight package, with revisions of the Weights and Dimensions Directive for Heavy-Duty Vehicles and the Combined Transport Directive.

2.5.

In March 2023, the Commission presented a communication on a European hydrogen bank, focusing on financing.

2.6.

A communication on a common European data space for mobility is planned for 2023.

2.7.

The deals reached in ongoing trialogues on the Fit for 55 package may have a decisive effect on the possibilities to reach the Green Deal objectives set for 2050. This is also the case for the abovementioned proposals planned for 2023 and their fate is in the hands of the co-legislators. Finding an efficient way to manage the transition period both regarding technical and system development and social aspects is particularly important for success.

3. General comments

3.1.

Transport covers a large number of issues, many of them specific for each transport mode. Essential elements for implementing and, as appropriate, speeding up the transition of transport are basically: emission reduction, development of renewables, digitalisation, improved efficiency and alternative means of transport in city mobility. These elements and the availability of adequate infrastructure for fuels appear to be common to all modes and to both goods and passenger transport. It is important that adequate resources — private or public — are provided for research and development of zero- and low-emission vehicles, renewable fuels and digital solutions for transport.

3.2.

It is important that all relevant legislation should as far as possible be consistent with the objectives of the green transition and promote the reduction of emissions, but in a way that does not harm the social interests of workers.

3.3.

It is important to pay due attention to the important social consequences of transforming transport, both for the workforce and for users, and to make certain that negative effects on workers are avoided, while ensuring the availability and affordability of transport for users, as well as efficient and reasonably priced logistics chains. Adequate solutions to these matters are important for the acceptance of the transition by the workforce, the general public and business.

3.4.

Given the very high level of ambition, and bearing in mind that transport demand is expected to rise, and by 2050 to become more than twice as big as today, good and credible management of the transition becomes essential, also bearing in mind that it is important that implementation measures are feasible and seen as feasible and that the right signals go out on the market.

3.5.

Credibility will also be essential for people to be ready to modify habits and lifestyle in a way that promotes the transition, such as willingness to invest in vehicles with new propulsion systems, preference for car-sharing, increased use of collective transport, increased use of active means of mobility such as cycling or walking, particularly in cities, willingness of freight transport companies to exchange information to improve the possibilities of efficient use of resources by capacity-sharing.

3.6.

Awareness-raising is important, as well as following up on such activities to ensure their impact. Civil society organisations and relevant stakeholders are important here.

3.7.

Urbanisation and development of e-commerce will mean a change in transport needs and patterns, as reflected for instance in the abovementioned TEN-T proposal and the communication on urban mobility. Urban areas provide a good context for promoting active and green mobility modes and green freight transport solutions.

3.8.

In a 27-Member-States EU where elements such as nature, demography, population density, general living conditions and cost level of businesses vary considerably, it may be necessary for practical and feasibility reasons to accept that one size does not necessarily fit all and that it may be necessary to be flexible and accept different solutions to the extent that these do not in real life disturb the functioning of the internal market. Examples of this could be the overall size of vehicle combinations or the extent to which forestry products may be used in the production of biofuels and the share of biofuels in the overall renewable energy for transport offer.

3.9.

Technological neutrality should be an overarching principle when conceiving and implementing solutions at EU and national level in order to make it possible to take account of national specificities.

3.10.

During the last few years Europe has been exposed to crisis situations affecting the functioning of the transport system, such as the COVID-19 pandemic which affected passenger transport and posed a challenge to the functioning of freight transport links. The war in Ukraine and the sanctions provoked by it have had considerable effects on energy availability and pricing, including with respect to transport fuels. It cannot be excluded that the energy problems and pricing may have effects on the possibilities of developing renewable fuels while at the same time creating circumstances that promote, for instance, the development of collective transport.

3.11.

This highlights the importance of avoiding dependence on one single supplier of a source of energy.

CO2 requirements — renewable fuels/means of propulsion — availability and options

3.12.

The European Commission focuses on electricity produced from renewables and green hydrogen as main energy sources. The recent agreement on the renewable energy Directive sets a 2030 minimum global share of 42,5 % renewables, with 29 % on transport, including a binding combined sub–target of 5,5 % advanced biofuels/RFNBOs with a minimum requirement of 1 % RFNBOs. This question brings up the amendments to the land use and forestry (LULUCF) Regulation which restricts the use of forest products for biofuel production, and the use of biomass waste in agriculture and food industries to produce fuels. This is an important part of an overall solution for energy supply, as are geothermal energy possibilities and new aviation fuels.

3.13.

The upcoming proposal for CO2 emission limitations on heavy-duty vehicles brings up the possible limitations of electric propulsion, in particular for long distance transport, as well as the question of the adequacy of supply for alternative fuels for such vehicles and their total cost of ownership. Against that background, the automotive industry has raised the question of an alternative option of developing low-carbon/low-emission fossil fuels as a means to bring down emissions without requiring the renewal of vehicle fleets and without requiring a dedicated infrastructure. A combined strategy based on both pillars is likely to provide an optimal way to meet the target. This strategy would allow the rapid development of low- and zero-emission fuels including various kinds of hydrogen and the inherent possibilities of emission reductions in those transport segments where electrification is not currently an option.

3.14.

The EESC also recommends a more comprehensive method for assessing the CO2 emissions of vehicles, namely replacing the current ‘tank to wheel’ method with a ‘well to wheel’ method, which provides a better basis for the CO2 emission assessment.

3.15.

A key issue is the availability of infrastructure for renewables and hydrogen distribution which is key to the use renewables in transport, including with the high capacity needed for heavy-duty vehicles. The trialogue agreement on AFIR i.a. sets deployment objectives for cars, vans and heavy-duty vehicles for the core and comprehensive TEN-T, starting in 2025, for hydrogen in 2030. Coverage for heavy-duty vehicles shall be complete in 2030. This may create a problem of coherence as the TEN-T core network shall be completed by 2040 and comprehensive network by 2050. The availability in rural areas not covered by the TEN-T may also pose a problem. In any case, the frequent delays in the implementation of infrastructure projects raises the need to ensure that investment is a priority and that efficient monitoring is ensured.

Efficiency as a means of transition

3.16.

Efficiency improves transport sustainability and may be achieved through better loading capacity, improved infrastructure that makes transport quicker or improved terminal infrastructure that makes loading/unloading or change of mode go quicker. New technologies and new ways of using means of transport, for instance car-sharing, may reduce, in particular, urban traffic volumes. Possibilities to use facilities that improve efficiency should not be conditioned on, for instance, the environmental qualities of a vehicle since that would limit the scope of the relevant improved sustainability.

3.17.

This means, for instance, that the improved loading capacity resulting from accepting larger and heavier vehicles and/or vehicle combinations should not be conditioned on environmental qualities of a vehicle such as zero-emission nor should it be linked to specific use.

3.18.

It is, however, equally important that low- and zero-emission vehicles, airplanes or ships are granted a level playing field by ensuring as far as possible that technical prescriptions ensure that they have the same loading capacity as other vehicles, ships and airplanes. Boosting the use of non-fossil fuels calls for ambitious aims to provide security for investors.

3.19.

Digitalisation is another important means of improving efficiency. Exchange of information between businesses could contribute toward improved efficiency, enable the integration of means of transport, coordination of operations and hence improved sustainability.

Multimodality and transition

3.20.

Given that a key element of the Green Deal is the improvement of the sustainability of all modes, each of which may be seen as part of a system. Therefore, the objective ought to be promoting efficient and seamless multimodality where each mode can give its best with improved overall sustainability as a result. Digitalisation, capacity optimisation and coordination will help make modes work as a coherent system. Access to networks should be equal for all modes and multimodality facilitated. Each mode of transport should be equally treated and benefit from modernisation to improve efficiency and contribute to decarbonisation and a more sustainable and resilient transport sector.

Overarching approach

3.21.

To improve sustainability, the basic approach should be making optimal use of solutions that are available and working. Certainly, resources must be devoted to developing new and innovative solutions, in a technologically neutral manner. It is equally important not to hamper the use of options already available. The transition of transport must be credible and realistic — and achieve measurable results.

3.22.

Therefore, solutions to be worked on should be socially credible and acceptable. This means that concrete and coordinated plans must be made and be subject to a social dialogue between the parties concerned on how to enable the workforce to adapt to new competence requirements and avoid transitory unemployment.

3.23.

It is important that solutions are financially credible. This means that, for instance, the cost of using low- or zero-emission fuels must be financially bearable for consumers and allow operations at an acceptable level of profit for commercial operators. Direct financial support is a kind of solution that should be avoided. A better solution is granting tax breaks for consumers or businesses that invest in sustainable solutions.

3.24.

The role of the public procurement system is emphasised as a means to promote sustainable objectives when public investments are made. The option of introducing labour law compliance as a specific requirement should be promoted. EU transport co-funding should be aligned with national policies and planning, as compatible with the EU framework.

3.25.

Safety and security are essential to any sustainable transport system. They affect all transport users and service providers. Standards must therefore be constantly improved in all modes.

Participation and consultation

3.26.

It is important for a successful green transition to achieve consensus through social dialogue and broad consultation with all stakeholders and the general public. This approach will help in defining problems, finding solutions acceptable to all concerned and creating confidence in and general support for planned measures. It must be seen as an indispensable condition for succeeding in negotiating the complex process of transforming the transport sector and improving the transparency of legislative procedures and the quality of legislation.

3.27.

The EESC emphasises the need to keep organised civil society closely involved in initiatives promoting sustainable transport and suggests developing early cooperation with all stakeholders further still.

4. Specific comments

Social aspects — transport accessibility

4.1.

Socially sustainable transport must be accessible, inclusive, safe and affordable to avoid mobility poverty. It must respond to the specific needs of different groups, for instance women. Accessibility means, inter alia, adequate territorial planning, including regarding the interface between agglomerations and surrounding rural areas and with due regard to dedicated solutions for elderly people and for persons with reduced mobility (moving walkways, hill trains, etc.). The offer of ecological transport for urban tourism should be improved. The EESC underscores the need to promote and develop sustainable urban mobility plans.

4.2.

The EESC calls for special attention to female users in order for transport to contribute to gender equality, including by focusing on safety in public transport.

4.3.

There should be support for shared and active transport, in particular in cities, including promotion of green modes using intelligent transport systems, mobility as a service concept and improving road safety. Quality of life issues must be taken into account, such as the need to reduce noise pollution.

4.4.

The EESC believes that public transport has a key task in the transformation process. Its inclusive nature makes it possible to achieve both environmental and social objectives. It can be complemented by micromobility solutions.

4.5.

Pricing of public transport must be affordable and fair while not leading to thinning of links or of staff with due regard to all stakeholders. As a matter of public service, public transport must not be based on profitability alone, nor must it lead to transport exclusion. This implies a socially justifiable need to also maintain unprofitable connections to maintain social cohesion, for instance through public service obligations. This may call for combustion engine propulsion to maintain an adequate service level.

Social aspects — the workforce

4.6.

A major problem of the transport sector is the shortage of human resources, which may pose a problem to the development of the sector, including the planned green transition. In this context attention is drawn to the importance of ensuring satisfactory working conditions and ensuring fair pay and working conditions in the sector, including for platform workers. While labour relations remain a national competence, there is nevertheless a reason to draw attention to the possibilities of collective bargaining to reach agreement on attractive working conditions in the transport sector including wages and occupational safety and health at national and transnational level.

4.7.

New technologies can bring new opportunities in this regard. The importance of training and lifelong learning is underscored, in particular as a means to enable the workforce to keep up with new competence requirements due to the green transition, including digitalisation of the sector.

4.8.

Measures such as those set out in 4.3 and 4.5 above will give the sector an attractive image and attract young people and women to the transport sector.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/87

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union

(COM(2023) 38 final – 2023/0012 (NLE))

and on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union: harnessing its full potential for managing fair transitions

(COM(2023) 40 final)

(2023/C 228/12)

Rapporteur:	Pekka RISTELÄ
Co-rapporteur:	Mariya MINCHEVA

Referral	European Commission, 8.3.2023
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	179/52/17

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the Commission Communication on Strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Communication’) and the Commission proposal for a Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Recommendation’).

1.2.

Social dialogue at national and European level plays a key role in shaping economic, labour and social policies that promote the upward convergence of living and working conditions across Member States. The EESC is fully aligned with the view that social dialogue can be a beneficial tool to drive economic and social resilience, competitiveness, and sustainable and inclusive growth.

1.3.

The positive results of social dialogue should not, however, be taken for granted, as social dialogue cannot be simply taken as an instrument that can be implemented. The Commission should look at the successful national, regional and sectoral models and see why they became successful.

1.4.

The EESC agrees with the Communication that more needs to be done both nationally and at EU level to support collective bargaining coverage. In this respect, the Recommendation, while listing important factors in improving the coverage, lacks a highly relevant point made in the Communication, namely the importance of sectoral collective agreements.

1.5.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Recommendation aims to improve tripartite social dialogue at both European and national levels, while noting that in some Member States, the tripartite dimension of social dialogue is more formalistic than meaningful. The EESC believes that establishing a common effective framework, to be implemented at national level for the involvement of social partners, might help ensure that effective and quality consultations with national social partners take place. The Member States should also have the obligation to attach the result of the consultations with social partners to the national plans for reforms and investments. If no meaningful involvement is carried out, the Commission should take actions.

1.6.

The EESC is concerned about the unclear situation as regards the implementation of social partner agreements through Council directives. Without clarity, transparency and predictability, the wide discretion of the European Commission in this matter is likely to have the unintended consequence of discouraging the social partners from negotiating these kinds of agreements. The EESC reiterates its call for the Commission to discuss this issue with the social partners.

1.7.

2. General comments

2.1.

The EESC welcomes the Commission Communication on Strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Communication’) and the Commission proposal for a Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Recommendation’).

2.2.

As noted in EESC opinion SOC/644 (1), social dialogue at national and European levels plays a key role in shaping economic, labour and social policies that promote the upward convergence of living and working conditions across Member States, as well as in responding to the challenges Europe is confronted with in the world of work.

2.3.

As acknowledged by the Communication, social partners have unrivalled knowledge and experience of the employment and social situation ‘on the ground’. Their input can strike the right balance between workers’ and employers’ interests and improve the acceptability and effectiveness of policy and legislation. The Commission also rightly points out that the social partners have a unique role compared to other stakeholders.

2.4.

2.5.

The EESC has previously underlined (2) that one of the main functions of social dialogue, notably collective bargaining, is to contribute to shaping the business environment and managing changes in working life, by providing information, anticipation, participation and facilitation to build up mutual trust between social partners at all levels.

2.6.

The EESC is fully aligned with the view that social dialogue can be a beneficial tool to drive economic and social resilience, competitiveness, and sustainable and inclusive growth. However, the positive results of social dialogue should not be taken for granted, as social dialogue cannot be simply taken as an instrument that can be implemented. The Commission should look at the successful national, regional and sectoral models and see why they became successful. Knowledge sharing and peer review between Member States could also help improve the situation in countries where social dialogue is weak.

2.7.

To further support social partners in engaging in social dialogue, improving collective bargaining coverage, and in implementing social dialogue agreements, whether from the EU or national level, it is important that social partners in countries where social dialogue is currently weaker have access to additional capacity building support. Notably, this concerns the European Social Fund (ESF)+, where it would be important to distinguish between capacity building support for social partners and wider civil society. This distinction should be introduced in the ESF+ Regulation and Common Provisions Regulation for the next financial period. At the same time, better financial solutions should be found for civil society organizations.

2.8.

As recognized by the European Commission, social dialogue was at the forefront of the design and implementation of policies limiting the impacts of the pandemic in the world of work. Social partners also play an important role in tackling the far-reaching impacts of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine by facilitating labour market integration of displaced people from Ukraine, as well as other refugees and migrants. The social partners also have the essential role of finding sustainable solutions to adjusting wages and collective agreements in response to the cost-of-living crisis and high levels of inflation.

2.9.

The EESC has recognized (3) that effective social dialogue must include:

—	representative and legitimate social partners with the knowledge, technical capacity and timely access to relevant information to participate;

—	the political will and commitment to engage in social dialogue;

—	respect for the fundamental prerogatives and autonomy of the social partners, freedom of association and collective bargaining, and an enabling legal and institutional framework to support social dialogue processes with well-functioning institutions.

The EESC appreciates that all these elements are included in the present Commission initiative.

2.10.

At the same time, there are still examples across the EU where social dialogue is weak and operates in a negative environment. Sometimes the legal framework does not provide space for social partners to negotiate. This weakens the positions of social partners, but also decreases their capacity to engage in collective bargaining and attract new members. Open, transparent, pre-established objective criteria for determining the representativeness of social partner organizations, set in agreement with them and avoiding excessive administrative burdens, are crucial for Member States that still lack long traditions. At the same time, there are a great variety of existing national practices, including mutual recognition between the social partners’ organizations, that need to be respected.

2.11.

The EESC agrees with the Communication that more needs to be done both nationally and at EU level to support collective bargaining coverage (4), and welcomes in this respect the Recommendation’s references to different means of achieving this: removing institutional or legal barriers to social dialogue and collective bargaining covering new forms of work or atypical employment; ensuring that the negotiating parties have the freedom to decide on the issues to be negotiated; ensuring that any possibility to derogate from collective bargaining agreements is agreed between the social partners and limited with regard to the conditions under which it can apply; and ensuring and implementing a system of enforcement of collective agreements.

2.12.

While the Recommendation lists these important factors in improving collective bargaining coverage, it lacks a highly relevant point made in the Communication, namely the importance of sectoral collective agreements. As noted in the Communication, collective bargaining coverage is high (above 50 %) only in countries with at least some form of sectoral bargaining. This evidence is also recognized in the recent Directive on adequate minimum wages (Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5)), according to which Member States shall promote the building and strengthening of the capacity of the social partners to engage in collective bargaining on wage-setting, in particular at sector or cross-industry level.

2.13.

At the same time, it is important to preserve the voluntary nature of collective bargaining, and create the proper environment to make the process attractive and mutually beneficial. The process needs to be as inclusive as possible. Effective dispute resolution systems should also be in place. Mechanisms for monitoring the coverage of collective agreements should be developed in the Member States with the involvement of social partners.

2.14.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Recommendation aims to improve tripartite social dialogue at both European and national level, referring, among others, to the importance of allocating sufficient time for consultations throughout the policymaking process, ensuring adequate institutional frameworks, and ensuring access to the relevant information needed in order to participate in social dialogue.

2.15.

In some Member States, the tripartite dimension of social dialogue is more formalistic than meaningful. With adequate implementation and monitoring, the Recommendation can be an important step forward in improving this situation. Fostering tripartite dialogue at European level would be particularly important around aspects related to employment and social protection, for example through due consideration to the creation of tripartite advisory committees on these issues.

2.16.

In its previous opinions, the EESC has recommended, for instance, the proper involvement of the social partners in designing and implementing national recovery plans, and better cooperation between social partners and the European Commission in ensuring the consistent use of European resources (6). Improved involvement of other civil society organizations should also be ensured.

2.17.

The EESC agrees with the Commission on the importance of European social dialogue agreements as one of the most important outcomes of EU social dialogue. The EESC also takes note of the Commission’s call to the European social partners to negotiate and conclude more social partner agreements, while underlining that the social partners themselves will decide whether they should enter into negotiations and, if so, what issues would be appropriate. This is a fundamental aspect of their autonomy.

2.18.

At the same time, the EESC is concerned about the unclear situation regarding the implementation of social partner agreements through Council directives. Without a clearer process, the wide discretion of the European Commission in this matter, enabled by the recent judgements of the European Court of Justice (7), is likely to have the unintended consequence of discouraging the social partners’ from negotiating these kinds of agreements.

2.19.

For this reason, the EESC reiterates its call for the Commission to discuss this issue with the social partners, respecting their autonomy and following the procedure of Article 155 TFEU. The EESC also repeats its call for the Commission to provide clear and transparent criteria regarding the implementation of sectoral social partner agreements (8).

3. Specific comments

3.1. Specific comments on the Communication

3.1.1.

In the Communication, the Commission proposes support and legal advice from Commission services to the negotiating social partners, notably on matters that could have a negative impact on the implementation of an agreement by means of EU law. Crucially, the social partners need to jointly agree if such advice and support is necessary in the context of their negotiations.

3.1.2.

The Commission also refers to the practice, confirmed by the Court judgement C-928/19 P, of assessing, among other things, the appropriateness of implementing the negotiated social partner agreement through EU law. The Commission notes that an impact assessment may be conducted in this context. The Commission commits to informing the respective social partners within 3 months of its preliminary considerations, possibly including whether or not there will be an impact assessment.

3.1.3.

While the EESC acknowledges the value of the support and advice offered by the Commission, and the commitment to certain time limits in conducting its assessments, these measures are not sufficient in giving the process the clarity, transparency and predictability that the negotiating partners need.

3.1.4.

The EESC underlines the importance of an adequate supportive framework for sectoral social dialogue, and takes note of the Open letter from European Sectoral Social Partners (9). The sectoral organizations’ concerns on the financing and organization of sectoral social dialogue committees merit serious consideration.

3.1.5.

3.1.6.

In the context of the European Semester of economic and employment policy coordination, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s recognition of the important role played by social partners, when meaningfully and timely involved at EU and national level, to ensure that reforms and investments are designed and implemented effectively. Nonetheless, while structured dialogues are regularly organized with social partners at EU level during key moments of the Semester cycle, at national level the governments have too often disregarded their involvement, and its effectiveness largely depends on the good will of governments rather than on established practices or rules.

3.1.7.

The EESC agrees that the promotion of social dialogue and collective bargaining is also important in the context of the ongoing enlargement negotiations, and welcomes the Commission’s support to projects aimed at improving social dialogue in candidate or potential candidate countries. The same is true of the European Neighbourhood policy and the EU’s Global Gateway partnerships, where the EU rightly commits to uphold high standards of human, social, and workers’ rights.

3.2. Specific comments on the Recommendation

3.2.1.

The EESC welcomes the Recommendation’s respect of the role and autonomy of trade unions and employers’ organizations in collective bargaining. The EESC considers it important to clarify that the notion of workers’ organizations, as referred in recital 12, is interpreted in line with the case law of the ILO supervisory bodies (in particular Conventions 98 and 154), and to remove the word ‘generally’ from recital 12. Additionally, a reference to ILO Convention 98 would be relevant, in addition to Convention 135, in recital 13.

3.2.2.

The EESC welcomes the call on Member States to ensure that social partners are systematically and meaningfully involved in the design and implementation of policies in a timely manner, especially those concerning the European Semester and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). The EESC believes that establishing a common effective framework, to be implemented at national level for the involvement of social partners, as well as civil society organizations, might help ensure that effective and quality consultations take place.

3.2.3.

As regards the European Semester, Member States should have the obligation to attach the result of the consultations with social partners, and their position/input, to the national plans for reforms and investments. This also applies to the ESF+ and other cohesion funds, as appropriate, and in full respect of the Partnership Principle. In all cases, it is vital that social partners are effectively involved, and that this is not reduced to a tick-box exercise. Moreover, if no meaningful involvement is carried out, or if social dialogue is undermined at national level, the Commission should take action, e.g., the draft plans/partnership agreements could remain pending of approval.

3.2.4.

The recitals of the Recommendation recognize that the EU public procurement Directives (10) require Member States to respect the right to organize and collective bargaining. The EESC considers that this issue, which is closely linked to the aim of increasing collective bargaining coverage, should be included in the actual recommendations to the Member States.

3.2.5.

The Recommendation notes that the capacity of the national social partners in some Member States needs to be strengthened, with a view to the implementation of EU autonomous social partner agreements at national level. The EESC believes that stronger support in this respect (including via ESF+) would be useful to promote the EU social dialogue outcomes at national level and improve the implementation process on the ground.

3.2.6.

The EESC welcomes the special attention to available national and EU funding to support social partners. ESF+ is a valuable instrument to increase social partners’ capacity (including those representing SMEs and microenterprises) to engage in tripartite and bipartite social dialogues, but also to support joint actions undertaken by them in anticipating, changing and addressing the employment and social consequences of the challenges deriving from different social-economic developments, such as the digital and green transition, to provide just one example. This should be clearly outlined as part of a dedicated approach to capacity building support for social partners under the ESF+.

3.2.7.

As civil dialogue involving a broader set of stakeholders is rightly recognized as a separate process by the Commission, the support under ESF+ should follow the same approach. The budget lines dedicated to social partners and CSOs should be separated to better outline the specific roles and better track the outcomes. In addition, a clear set of criteria for State Aid tests (approved by the Commission), is needed, as it appears to be an issue in some Member States. These criteria should be applied when the national authorities assess the compatibility of social partners’ project activities with State Aid rules. Their design should reflect the special role of social partners, in order to facilitate their better involvement in and effective contribution to social dialogue on different levels (international, EU, national, regional, sectoral). Similar rules should be developed for CSOs.

3.2.8.

The EESC finds it important that the Recommendation comes with clear and effective monitoring provisions. The Member States are recommended to submit, within 18 months of the publication of the Recommendation, a list of measures, drawn up in consultation with the social partners, for its implementation. The Commission, on its part, intends to develop commonly agreed indicators to monitor the implementation jointly with the Employment Committee and with relevant social partners. The social partners should play a prominent role in the development of these indicators.

3.2.9.

The EESC welcomes the Recommendation’s statement that this monitoring should allow social partners to, among other things, identify situations where they have been excluded or inadequately involved in national level consultations on EU and national policy. The EESC considers that it would also be important to define a process that follows on from such identifications and aims to improve the situation.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(2) EESC opinion on Social dialogue for innovation in digital economy (OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 1).

(3) EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(4) EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(5) Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union (OJ L 275, 25.10.2022, p. 33).

(6) EESC opinions on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14) and on Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 97).

(7) Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019, T–310/18, and judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 C-928/19 P.

(8) EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(9) Open letter from the European Sectoral Social Partners — EuroCommerce.

(10) Directives 2014/24/EU see OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65, 2014/25/EU see OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243 and 2014/23/EU see OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 1.

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussions (Rule 74(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 1

SOC/764

Strengthening social dialogue

Point 2.3

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

As acknowledged by the Communication, social partners’ input can strike the right balance between workers’ and employers’ interests and improve the acceptability and effectiveness of policy and legislation. The Commission also rightly points out that the social partners have a unique role compared to other stakeholders . However, the EESC underlines the value of cooperation and exchange of views between participants of both social and civil dialogues. Many civil society organizations also have a unique experience and specific knowledge from the ground up. This knowledge can be used beyond civil dialogue. It is worth highlighting the practices in some Member States, where the representatives of specific civil society organizations are invited by social partners to meetings, organised in the framework of social dialogue, who want to listen to them and to make use of their knowledge, expertise and experiences .

Reason

In many areas of social situation ‘on the ground’ the knowledge of civil society organizations is much more extensive — as for example in the fight against poverty, support for persons with disabilities or other vulnerable groups of citizens, the integration of migrants, the rights of ethnic minorities and help for children at risk of social exclusion. This reality should be reflected in the exploratory opinion in order to avoid the impression that only the social partners are knowledgeable on the social situation ‘on the ground’. The above-mentioned expertise is known, recognized and understood by the social partners in some Member States, who invite representatives of specific civil society organizations to meet the actors in the tripartite dialogue structures, in order to deepen their knowledge and enrich their experience.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	83
Against:	153
Abstention:	9

AMENDMENT 2

SOC/764

Strengthening social dialogue

Point 2.4

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process. The EESC stresses the need for cooperation and exchange of views between participants in social and civil dialogue, as the leading representatives of the interests of many social groups are not social partners, but other civil society organizations. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid situations in which agreements among social partners are made without considering the views and arguments of other civil society organizations, which represent and have a significant impact on the lives of European citizens.

Reason

The aim of this amendment is to underline that the interests of other groups, not ‘covered’ significantly by social partners and mostly represented by other civil society organizations, must be taken into account when the social dialogue is conducted.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	79
Against:	157
Abstention:	7

AMENDMENT 3

SOC/764

Strengthening social dialogue

Point 3.1.5

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

When it comes to promoting European tripartite social dialogue, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s announcement that it will assign the role of Social Dialogue Coordinator in each Commission service. Having such coordinators in Commission Directorates-General and relevant services has the potential to raise awareness and improve the quality of social dialogue, and to thereby help the Commission in realising the benefits that well-functioning tripartite dialogue can bring to European policy making. At the same time, the EESC stresses that similar coordinators should be introduced in each EC Directorate-General, in order to promote European civil dialogue. Both of these dialogues should be strengthened in parallel by the Commission, with no preference to any of them.

Reason

The European Commission is now proposing to create a dedicated Social Dialogue Coordinator in each Directorate-General and other Commission services. These are very significant human resources dedicated to strengthening social dialogue, because there are 30 DGs alone and many other services. The creation of a special coordinator for social dialogue in at least some DGs raises doubts, given that these are areas of activity which are dominated by civil society organizations other than social partners. Examples include the environment, climate, agriculture and rural development, education, youth, sport and culture, justice and consumers. Simultaneous actions to support civil dialogue are necessary — there is no reason for the European Commission to deal specifically with only one type of dialogue, allocating to its strengthening significant human resources, which in total may exceed 50 people.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	78
Against:	156
Abstention:	7

AMENDMENT 4

SOC/764

Strengthening social dialogue

Point 1.7

Amend as follows

Section opinion

Amendment

As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process. This distinction should also be made in the capacity building support for social partners and wider civil society. At the same time, the EESC underlines the value of cooperation and exchange of views between participants of both social and civil dialogues. Many civil society organizations also have a unique experience and specific knowledge from the ground up. This knowledge can be used beyond civil dialogue.

Reason

To reflect the main body of the text.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:	83
Against:	153
Abstention:	9

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/97

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information (API) for enhancing and facilitating external border controls, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/817 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1726, and repealing Council Directive 2004/82/EC

(COM(2022) 729 final)

and on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/818

(COM(2022) 731 final)

(2023/C 228/13)

Rapporteur:

Tymoteusz Adam ZYCH

Referral	European Commission, 8.2.2023
Legal basis	Article 77(2)(b) and (d) and Article 79(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	137/0/0

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the European Commission’s proposals on advance passenger information (1), considering the need for effective collection and transfer of API and passenger name records (PNR) data for border management purposes and for combatting illegal immigration, as well as for security reasons, including the need to prevent and combat terrorism and serious crime.

1.2.

The EESC is convinced that as long as API and PNR data remain the subject of the current Directives (API Directive (2) and PNR Directive (3)), there will be undesirable differences in their implementation at national level.

1.3.

In order to harmonise the implementation of such Directives, as well as to increase the efficiency of API and PNR data collection and transfer, the Regulations are necessary since they will eliminate differences resulting from varied practices of Member States (MS); increase legal certainty; accelerate passenger flow; and reduce administrative difficulties for air carriers.

1.4.

The EESC emphasises the importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) when applying the proposed Regulations. The rights of vulnerable groups, especially disabled persons, should be carefully taken into consideration.

1.5.

An important argument in favour of adopting the proposals is the fact that the current API and PNR Directives are subject to criticism due to their non-compliance with current data protection standards.

1.6.

The EESC recognises the necessity of incurring costs generated by eu-LISA in relation to the design, development, hosting and technical management of the router, to be borne by the general budget of the EU, as well as the costs incurred by MS in relation to their connection to and integration with the router.

1.7.

However, the EESC notes that the proposed Regulations introduce significant legal changes, in addition to the far-reaching modifications of the currently functioning system from the technical side. Therefore the new API and PNR frameworks require continuous and thorough monitoring, carried out not only at MS level but also at those of the Commission, air carriers and competent authorities, as well as by eu-LISA, especially in the context of personal data. For this reason, the EESC highlights that there is a strong need to organise an information campaign on the new legislation, as well as training for air carriers. More frequent audits are also suggested, as well as the consideration of additional procedures for monitoring the functioning of the new frameworks for collecting and transmitting API and PNR data.

1.8.

The EESC is aware that the scope of the proposals does not cover all passengers crossing the external borders of the EU. However, having regard to the principle of proportionality and to the specificity of air travel, limiting the proposals to air travel seems justified at this stage. When the Regulations are subject to an ex post impact assessment, it is suggested that the Commission assess the need to broaden the scope to other modes of transport, in particular maritime.

1.9.

In addition, the EESC understands the concerns related to the practical application of the provisions set out in the proposals. It suggests further clarifying the norms on penalties imposed on private operators in the aviation industry. Taking into account the fact that it is impossible in practice to ensure full accuracy of API data, it is also proposed that a ‘threshold of tolerance’ at EU level be considered for errors in collecting and transferring the data, and that it be made clear that penalties are imposed on non-cooperative carriers, or imposed only where the minimum acceptable quality level for API data (as defined at EU level) is not achieved.

2. Introduction

2.1.

The focus of this opinion is mainly on the proposed Regulation regarding the collection and transfer of API data for border management (4), and it briefly examines the second proposed Regulation on the collection and transfer of API in the context of serious crime and terrorist offences (5) in paragraph 7 below, which applies to PNR data due to planned changes to API data.

2.2.

The proposed Regulations apply to air transport only, excluding other means of transport, such as travel by sea or overland. The proposals apply to both charter and business flights.

2.3.

The proposed Regulations will repeal the existing API Directive. Once adopted, they will become part of the Schengen acquis.

3. General remarks

3.1.

The EESC recognises the fact that, owing to the increase in the popularity of air travel, existing passenger service systems are insufficiently effective and need to be improved, particularly to ensure a smooth flow of passengers. In 2019, the International Civil Aviation Organisation reported that 4,5 billion passengers travelled by air on scheduled services, with over half a billion passengers entering or leaving the EU every year. Neither the COVID-19 pandemic nor Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have changed this situation, which makes it necessary to look for innovative solutions to speed up and improve the process of border control. Despite the collapse in air traffic that occurred in 2020-2021 due to the pandemic, air travel is recovering.

3.2.

On the other hand, the EESC is aware of the fact that, regardless of the efficiency of checks and the speed of the process of servicing air passengers, effective instruments are needed to counteract the phenomenon of illegal immigration, as well as to secure the EU’s borders.

3.3.

In the EESC’s view, the use of automatic data collection systems can have significant advantages, including increasing efficiency, technological development, improving quality, and accelerating the acquisition of data.

3.4.

As with every innovative technology, the automation of data collection and transfer also entails risks and complex policy challenges in areas such as security, safety and monitoring, socioeconomic aspects, ethics and privacy, reliability, etc.

3.5.

API data is a set of identity information on passengers contained in their travel documents, combined with flight information collected at check-in, and then transferred to the border authorities of the country of destination. API information includes biographic data of the passenger, ideally captured from the Machine Readable Zone of their travel documents, as well as some information related to their flight.

3.6.

The API collection and transfer system relies on delivering to competent authorities API data in advance of a flight’s arrival, so that these authorities can perform advance screening, in accordance with the applicable legislation, of travellers against risk profiles, watchlists and databases.

3.7.

The EESC is aware that the present Directive imposes an obligation on air carriers to transfer API data, upon request, to the border authorities of the country of destination prior to the flight’s take-off; however, it does not impose an obligation on MS to request API data from air carriers. As a result, MS authorities act inconsistently: some request API, others do not. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, it is estimated that API data is collected on 65 % of inbound flights, and therefore in practice it is easy to bypass controls and checks. Moreover, as noted in the evaluation of the API Directive by the Commission (6), even where MS request API data, their national authorities do not always use the data in a consistent way.

3.8.

The EESC is aware of the weaknesses of the current system established under the Directive. As the evaluation showed, the lack of standardisation and harmonisation leads to a diminishing of the benefits of processing API data, creating a burden on stakeholders and generating a certain level of legal uncertainty.

3.9.

The EESC also sees a potential threat for employees in the aviation industry, arising from the use of automatic data collection systems. Therefore, the EESC sees a need to organise training for such employees, which could help address the potential problems as a result of implementing the proposed Regulations.

3.10.

However, the EESC notes that the proposed Regulation on border management should not have a negative impact on the level of employment and the situation of employees, but only result in increased efficiency and reliability of data collection and transfer methods which are already implemented using automated procedures.

4. The need for the new API Regulation to enhance and facilitate border controls

4.1.

Experiences related to the application and evaluation of the current Directive have revealed numerous shortcomings in the current system, including inefficiency, cost-intensiveness and formal and administrative difficulties for carriers. In addition, some provisions of the Directive are unclear, cause doubts in interpretation and discrepancies in their application in MS, as well as inconsistencies with other provisions of EU law.

4.2.

The key shortcomings of the present Directive should be indicated:

—	today, air carriers are obliged to understand and adapt to the national API information transfer systems of individual MS;

—	at present, carriers are in some cases obliged to send the same data to different authorities;

—	currently, the number and type of data elements required by responsible authorities also vary across MS;

—	Article 3(2) of the Directive provides a non-exhaustive list of data elements, and this list is not in line with international standards;

—

Article 6(1) of the Directive allows data transmission ‘electronically or, in case of failure, by any other appropriate means’, which does not mandate a specific messaging protocol and format. This results in an additional burden for carriers (e.g. by complying with the varied formats required by responsible authorities for transmission of data), but has also an effect on the timeliness and quality of API data and hence impacts its usefulness;

—	the operational procedures for capturing, transmitting, processing and analysing API data vary across MS in terms of methods, timing, format and frequency of transmission;

—

the Directive does not itself lay down detailed safeguards for the protection of personal data (with the exception of Article 6(1), which provides that, for border control and migration purposes, authorities must delete API data within 24 hours after transmission), while analogous provisions of other legal acts, such as the EES (chapter VII Articles 51-59), ETIAS (chapter XII data protection Articles 59-70) and PNR (Articles 12 and 13) include more detailed provisions on data protection.

4.3.

An important argument in favour of adopting the proposed Regulation is also the fact that the Directive is subject to criticism due to its non-compliance with current data protection standards. First of all, the Directive raises the following doubts:

—	the list of API data required from air carriers is not exhaustive, which is against the principle of data minimisation;

—	the purpose of API data collection (either for border control and/or law enforcement purposes) is unclear;

—	from the perspective of border control requirements, the 24-hour data retention limit is too short and impractical;

—	rules on data retention and subsequent use are not sufficiently defined and clear.

4.4.

To counteract the identified shortcomings, the proposed Regulation assumes the creation of a central API router in order to enhance pre-checks at the relevant external borders with high quality and complete API data and facilitate the flow of travellers.

5. The scope and level of the Regulation

5.1.

Considering the above findings, the EESC finds that an introduction of a uniform system at EU level for all MS will allow, among other things, the development of ‘single window approach’, i.e. centralising the process of collecting all data coming from carriers and further transferring it to relevant authorities. A unified system would allow an improvement of the quality of the data obtained and also for the entire process to be fully automated, reducing costs on the part of public entities, carriers, and the travellers themselves.

5.2.

The proposed Regulation serves to unify and simplify the procedure for collecting and transferring API data, which is beneficial not only from the point of view of MS authorities, but above all from the point of view of the aviation industry, although it will oblige them to collect and transfer API data for all flights into the EU. Nevertheless, the proposed Regulation will bring legal certainty and foreseeability, and therefore also increased compliance by air carriers.

5.3.

The EESC believes that, in order to guarantee what the API Directive has aimed for, the objectives of the Directive are better served by having the proposed Regulation. It is unlikely that the benefits derived from the implementation of API systems by implementing countries would have been achieved without EU intervention. In short, the idea behind the proposed Regulation is the belief that the lack of harmonisation in the implementation of the Directive is an obstacle to its effectiveness and coherence.

5.4.

The EESC also notes the need to amend the Directive due to the passage of time since its entry into force, particularly in light of the development of information technologies since 2004. According to the proposed Regulation, the new system will be fully compatible with the solutions already in use, i.e. the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Visa Information System (VIS), the Eurodac system, the Entry/Exit System (EES), the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and the centralised system for the identification of MS holding information on convictions of third-country nationals and stateless persons (ECRIS-TCN system).

6. The efficiency of the proposed solutions

6.1.

The EESC supports the adoption of solutions that will ensure effective external border controls and a coherent approach across the entire Schengen area, including in relation to the possibility of pre-checks of travellers using API data.

6.2.

However, regardless of the general support for the proposed Regulation, the EESC is concerned about the risks of abuse related to the centralisation of the collection process and API data transfer, including in particular personal data. These fears are also justified by the fact that the router through which the data will be transmitted is still in the planning phase — the task of its design, construction, development, management and technical maintenance was delegated to the eu-LISA agency.

6.3.

The EESC acknowledges that the adoption of the proposed Regulation will have an impact on the budget and staff needs of eu-LISA and the competent border authorities of MS. It is estimated that the additional costs will include EUR 45 million (33 million under current MFF) to set-up the router and EUR 9 million per year from 2029 onwards for the technical management thereof, and about EUR 27 million for MS — and this will be borne by the EU budget.

6.4.

The EESC appreciates the precise and comprehensive specifying of the data included in the data API (defined in Article 4(2) and (3) of the proposal) for enhancing and facilitating external border controls.

6.5.

The EESC emphasises that the proposed Regulation allows the Commission to clarify numerous detailed issues, especially technical ones, by means of delegated acts issued later. Therefore, the final assessment of the proposed Regulation depends on the detailed provisions issued in the future, as well as the quality of the adopted technical solutions.

6.6.

As a consequence, the EESC is obliged to highlight security concerns relating to data protection. From the EESC’s viewpoint, effective data protection especially needs to be looked at in the context of the protection of fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right to the protection of personal data, which includes the right to information on the acquisition, storage and processing of personal data. Therefore, the EESC fully endorses a new obligation to carry out regular personal data protection audits. At the same time, the EESC suggests considering whether the relevant national data protection authorities should ensure that the processing of API data constituting personal data is audited more frequently than once every four years.

6.7.

In order to ensure the best performance of the router, it is necessary to ensure cooperation between eu-LISA, MS, and air carriers. Consequently, eu-LISA’s obligation to provide training to those interested in the technical use of the router is a positive step.

6.8.

The EESC, guided by the principle of proportionality and concern for maximum protection of personal data, supports the exclusion from the statistical obligation of data such as nationality, gender and date of birth.

7. The importance of the PNR Regulation (the second proposed Regulation)

7.1.

The EESC sees the second of the proposed Regulations as a necessary and consistent modification of the system for collecting and transmitting PNR data in connection with the reform of API data.

7.2.

As a consequence, the unification of the system through the adoption of both Regulations at EU level and the creation of a router managed by eu-LISA will also increase security through a more effective identification process for high-risk travellers, and confirm the travel pattern of individuals under suspicion.

8. The cost of the Regulations

8.1.

The EESC concludes that the adoption of the proposed Regulations will generate costs on the part of the EU budget, expenses for MS, and also investment needs on the part of the aviation industry (estimated at approx. EUR 75 million, according to the impact assessment), but that on balance the benefits will outweigh the costs, because those costs will be compensated by the rationalised and centralised approach to transmitting the information to competent national authorities.

8.2.

The proposed Regulations reduce operating costs and also the penalties usually imposed from poor or missing travel data. Moreover, the entry into force of the Regulations will improve the surveillance of border crossings, the work of airport services and national border authorities, and will also contribute to improving security and counteracting illegal immigration. Taking into account all of the above, the EESC considers the proposed Regulations to be justified in the light of the positive costs-benefits analysis, as stated in the Commission’s impact assessment.

9. Specific comments

9.1.

The Committee emphasises the importance of the Charter in the process of application of the proposed Regulation, with special respect to vulnerable groups, including disabled persons. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the context of currently pending cases should be taken into consideration in this respect.

9.2.

CJEU case law is of particular importance for the new rules on collecting and transferring PNR data within the proposed institutional framework, in particular the ruling in Case C-817/19. The EESC also suggests that the terminology of both proposals should take into account the established CJEU case law.

9.3.

As noted in paragraph 1.6 above, the EESC considers the scope justified at this stage. However, when the Regulations are subject to an ex post impact assessment, it is suggested that the Commission assess the need to broaden the scope to other modes of transport, in particular maritime. In such an assessment, factors such as the specificity of each mode of transport, the administrative burden imposed on carriers, and the efficiency and effectiveness of securing the EU’s borders should be taken into account.

9.4.

As noted in paragraph 1.7 above, the EESC suggests further clarification regarding penalties imposed on private operators in the aviation industry, that a ‘threshold of tolerance’ at the EU level be considered for errors in data collection and transfer, and that penalties only be imposed under certain conditions.

9.5.

The EESC points out that the entry into force of the proposed Regulations should be accompanied by a broad information campaign, which could help communicate their aims to the public and reduce the likelihood of unforeseen circumstances when implementing the new provisions.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) There are two proposals: (a) proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information (API) for enhancing and facilitating external border controls, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/817 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1726, and repealing Council Directive 2004/82/EC; and (b) proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/818.

(2) Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 24).

(3) Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132).

(4) COM(2022) 729 final.

(5) COM(2022) 731 final.

(6) European Commission, Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the Council Directive 2004/82/EC on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data (API Directive), Brussels, 8.9.2020, SWD(2020)174 final.

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/103

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009

(COM(2022) 586 final — 2022/0365(COD))

(2023/C 228/14)

Rapporteur:	Bruno CHOIX
Co-rapporteur:	Guido NELISSEN

Referral	European Parliament, 15.12.2022 Council of the European Union, 21.12.2022
Legal basis	Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Consultative Commission on Industrial Change
Adopted in section	27.3.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	140/1/3

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The automotive industry is currently engaged in the biggest transformation in its history, namely the decarbonisation and digitalisation of road transport. This new paradigm will have a profound impact on the structure of the industry and on the quantity and quality of jobs. Given the scale of the transition, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) calls for a comprehensive industrial policy that integrates the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental and social. The employment dimension must be addressed by increased efforts regarding vocational training, upskilling/reskilling of the workforce, regional/local programmes of economic reconversion and professional reclassification. This has to be supported by a well-established social dialogue and the ambition to ensure the preservation/creation of decent jobs in the sector.

1.2.

The EESC supports the introduction of Euro 7 emission standards as an important element in achieving the EU’s ambient air quality objectives. At the same time, this will also allow the EU to maintain its industrial leadership in clean automotive technologies.

1.3.

The Committee welcomes the many improvements contained in the proposed regulation: prevention of manipulation, use of digital technologies, reduction of complexity, and inclusion of electric vehicles and non-exhaust emissions.

1.4.

For several reasons, the EESC calls for a ‘realistic’ and ‘cost-effective’ approach when setting new emission standards:

1.4.1.

respect of proportionality: as internal combustion engines are likely to become an outdated technology from 2035 onwards, the budgetary resources needed to meet the new standards will no longer be available to be invested directly in clean powertrains;

1.4.2.

individual car mobility must remain affordable in order to avoid ‘mobility poverty’ (alternative transport options are not sufficiently available outside urban agglomerations);

1.4.3.

if Euro 7 emission standards bring about excessively high costs this is likely to be counterproductive, as consumers will postpone the replacement of their car and continue to drive their more polluting vehicle, thus limiting the potential benefits of Euro 7 emission standards in terms of health.

1.5.

It is therefore important that all elements of the new Regulation are based on a scientific cost-benefit analysis. In this regard, all stakeholders must have the same understanding of how the costs of the new standards are calculated.

1.6.

The EESC believes that offering incentives to consumers would speed up the renewal of the car fleet and have significant health benefits, as replacing Euro 1-5/I-V vehicles with Euro 6/VI vehicles would lead to an 80 % reduction in NOx emissions.

1.7.

The EESC calls for a swift adoption of the Regulation and a minimum time frame of two years for cars/commercial vehicles and three years for buses and heavy goods vehicles to ensure the technical and economic viability of the proposed Regulation.

2. Background to the proposal

2.1.

The automotive sector accounts for around 10 % of the added value generated by industry in the EU and employs 13 million Europeans, equivalent to almost 7 % of the EU’s active population.

2.2.

Having grown continuously for more than a century, the automotive industry has been facing a recession and a crisis in its economic model since 2018. The ongoing crisis situations have led to the outlook for the recovery of global car production being revised down, particularly in Europe.

2.3.

At the same time, however, those involved in the automotive industry have to undertake the greatest transformation in vehicles since the invention of the car: electrification of the powertrain and digitalisation of the vehicle.

2.4.

Faced with this structural transition, the automotive industry is therefore engaged in a heavy investment phase that is putting pressure on its economic model, financed by reducing investment in conventional technologies (including internal combustion engines) and reducing production costs.

2.5.

In addition, the introduction of power and digital electronics opens the door to new competitors and is causing a shake-up in the sector, undermining the position of incumbent suppliers. This transition is a key factor driving employment trends.

2.6.

In quantitative terms, employment in this industrial sector is declining, in line with the reduction in capacity and the simplification of new traction systems. In qualitative terms, these jobs are changing significantly: needs linked to electrification and digitalisation require greater know-how in new fields of competence within the automotive sector.

2.7.

These employment dynamics can also be found in the automotive services sector: new traction systems reduce the need for maintenance and require a change in skills.

2.8.

It was in this context that the European Commission’s proposal for new Euro 7 emissions standards for cars, commercial vehicles, lorries and buses was published on 10 November 2022, after repeated delays.

2.9.

The proposal for new Euro 7 emissions standards is part of a much wider set of EU policies to tackle transport-related air pollution. EU rules on ambient air quality, periodic roadworthiness testing, CO2 emissions, fuel quality, infrastructure for alternative fuels, clean vehicles and the Eurovignette all reflect the need to reduce transport’s significant contribution to air pollution. They all come together to achieve the climate and non-pollution aim of the European Green Deal and contribute to the transition to sustainable mobility.

2.10.

The new Euro 7 standards will probably be the last ones for combustion engine cars as, under the 2021 Fit for 55 programme, it was decided to accelerate the decarbonisation of the automotive sector, leading to an agreement being reached on 27 October 2022 between the European Parliament and the Council to reduce CO2 emissions from cars by 55 % by 2030 and to ban the sale of new combustion-powered cars (including hybrids) from 2035.

3. Content of the proposal

The main changes proposed by the Regulation:

—	stricter emission limits will apply to both diesel and petrol cars and lorries (although the NOx limits for cars remain at the same level);

—	the test conditions for real-driving emissions will be expanded, while the conformity factors will be removed;

—	greater emphasis will be placed on shorter journeys: the distance used as a basis for calculating the cold start emissions budget will be reduced from 16 km to 10 km;

—	the non-exhaust emissions of brake particles and microplastics from tyres will be measured and regulated;

—	durability requirements will be increased: 200 000 km or 10 years for cars/commercial vehicles and 875 000 km with no time limit for lorries/buses;

—	continuous emissions control will be introduced through on-board monitoring: sensors will measure real emissions throughout the life of a vehicle;

—	the longevity of batteries will be assessed by checking the change in their capacity as mileage increases;

—	stricter rules will ensure that vehicles are not tampered with;

—	emission limits will be set for previously unregulated pollutants: ammonia for cars, formaldehyde for lorries. For the first time, limits will regulate the emissions caused by evaporation when filling up with fuel.

4. General comments

4.1.

Although premature deaths in the EU-27 attributed to exposure to air pollutants decreased in 2019 by 33 % from 2005, more ambitious limits are still needed. In this connection, road transport accounts for 37 % of total NOx emissions and each year, and fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides from road traffic are responsible for more than 70 000 premature deaths in the EU-27.

4.2.

The Commission has opted for a ‘realistic’ approach to establishing the new rules. Cars with an internal combustion engine will remain affordable even though the tightening of rules on diesels is likely to accelerate the decline in the supply of this type of vehicle. It should also be borne in mind that the new CO2 standards will also have an impact on vehicle purchase prices.

4.3.

Although less ambitious than many expected when it comes to the emission values set, the Euro 7 standard is a major revision that addresses a number of weaknesses of the Euro 6 standard, such as the risk of manipulation, the complexity of rules, vehicle ageing and real-world emissions. It also takes a much broader approach by including electric vehicles and non-exhaust emissions.

4.4.

Regulatory pressure from successive Euro emissions standards has fostered innovation in the design of emissions control systems and powertrains and contributed to the EU’s leading role in the industry. For this reason, it is important for EU standards to remain ahead of standards being developed in key markets. Being at the forefront of integrating digital and clean technologies is an important asset when it comes to accessing international markets. In this respect, more ambitious standards should also be envisaged, such as the US sustainability requirements (240 000 km or 15 years).

4.5.

The EESC believes that offering incentives to consumers would speed up the renewal of the car fleet, which would have a clear impact on air quality and emissions reductions. Replacing the old fleet with the latest, Euro 6 compliant vehicles, combined with ongoing electrification, would lead to a significant reduction (80 %) in NOx emissions from road transport by 2035.

4.6.

The EESC calls for a sound and scientific cost-benefit analysis to be devoted to each of the new elements to be regulated, in order to clarify to what extent these requirements taken separately could contribute to cost-effective emission reductions. In this respect, it is important that all stakeholders have the same understanding of the analysis of the additional costs associated with the implementation of the Euro 7 standard.

4.7.

The EESC firmly believes that individual car mobility must remain accessible and affordable for all, especially for people who do not have access to good quality public transport (or other transport solutions). The Committee therefore calls on the automotive industry to continue to maintain the supply of low-end vehicles that are accessible to all. As car prices are rising much faster than purchasing power, and since shared mobility services do not yet provide a valid alternative, the Committee also firmly believes that it is high time to take the problem of ‘mobility poverty’ seriously into account.

4.8.

In general, the EESC is of the opinion that a balance should be struck between the three dimensions of sustainable development. Investing both in the transition to electric vehicles and in the reengineering of the internal combustion engine could create competitive disadvantages for the European automotive industry compared to manufacturers producing electric vehicles only or foreign car manufacturers who are not subject to the same requirements. Moreover, it must be avoided that excessively high prices for Euro 7 compliant cars result in consumers postponing the replacement of their more polluting cars. This would significantly reduce the potential benefits of the Euro 7 standard, while at the same time causing industrial restructuring as a result of the collapse of sales.

4.9.

Given the scale of the transformation, the EESC is calling for a coherent industrial policy capable of meeting the triple challenge facing the automotive industry:

—	environment: contributing to achievement of the Green Deal objectives and the new emission standards of the Ambient Air Quality Directive;

—	economy: maintaining industrial leadership, preserving the automotive supply chain in the EU and developing a solid ecosystem for electric cars; and

—	social: ensuring a just transition framework, prior information and consultation/social dialogue to anticipate and manage the transition, regional reskilling plans, retraining and maintaining quality jobs.

5. Specific comments

5.1.

In its draft, the Commission sets two application dates: July 2025 for light-duty vehicles and July 2027 for heavy-duty vehicles. In both cases, the date corresponds to the date on which Member States will have to refuse to register vehicles that do not comply with the Euro 7 rules.

The choice of these dates raises questions, in particular with regard to light-duty vehicles.

5.1.1.

The July 2025 proposal seems unrealistic. Manufacturers will have to change production several months before this deadline in order to avoid producing stocks of Euro 6 vehicles that will no longer be registered, and it usually takes over a year for the entire fleet to be approved. Approvals would therefore have to start at the beginning of 2024, i.e. immediately after the adoption of the Euro 7 Regulation, and possibly before its implementing legislation is published.

The July 2027 proposal for heavy-duty vehicles may seem more appropriate, but it is necessary to take into account the time needed to develop innovative technical solutions such as the electrically heated catalyst, which will be necessary to reach the emission limits. The EESC therefore believes that swift adoption of the Regulation and a minimum time frame (after its adoption) of two years for cars/commercial vehicles and three years for buses/heavy goods vehicles are necessary to ensure the technical and economic viability of the proposed Regulation.

5.2.

As regards light-duty vehicles, the proposed Regulation provides for the different emissions limits that are applied to commercial vehicles according to their mass to be replaced by a single set of values covering all commercial vehicles, provided that the power-to-mass ratio remains below 35 kW/t. This effort to simplify things is commendable, but it is likely to have a significant impact on the activity of the light-duty commercial vehicles sector, particularly in the case of modified vehicles, especially as the application dates for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles do not coincide. In this context, the EESC calls for derogations and flexibility when it comes to application, for example in the case of converting a category N1 light-duty commercial vehicle (mass less than 3 500 kg) to a category M2 minibus (mass less than 5 000 kg).

5.3.

As part of the digital aim under the Green Deal, the Commission proposes introducing an innovative system called OBM (‘on board monitoring’) designed to record the level of pollutant emissions on board the vehicle on an ongoing basis, in order to:

—	identify situations of excess emissions not detected by the OBD;

—

periodically transmit emissions values to servers to facilitate market surveillance activities, in-service conformity checks and roadworthiness testing.

While such a system can indeed help to simplify monitoring processes, developing it requires the rapid development of technical rules that will make it possible to specify the hardware needed (sensors, software, etc.). This development, which will potentially have a major impact on users, will in itself require a period of three years after the technical rules are published for the purpose of implementation.

5.4.

Regarding light-duty vehicles, the limit values proposed by the Commission may appear to lack ambition in that they correspond, in principle, to harmonisation based on the lowest value set out in the Euro 6 rules for petrol and diesel engines. However, it is important to note that:

—	in its annexes, the draft Regulation provides for a redefinition of the conditions that currently ensure that the road test is representative of normal vehicle use, which will force manufacturers to adjust the size of the after-treatment systems;

—	harmonising limits on the basis of the best value increases the constraints for petrol engines (limit reduced by 50 % on CO for petrol passenger cars) as well as for diesels (NOx limit reduced by 40 % for heavy-duty diesel vehicles);

—	contrary to the Euro 6 Regulation, the Euro 7 Regulation provides for no tolerance, the basis for which will be the road test.

5.5.

Given that microplastics from tyres are one of the most significant sources of ocean pollution and that no limit has yet been set due to the lack of a procedure at UN level, there is an urgent need for such a procedure to be developed as soon as possible.

5.6.

The Committee questions the need to introduce ammonia emission standards for cars. Given that the transport sector accounts for less than 1 % of European ammonia emissions, the cost of this measure does not seem to be proportionate to the benefits. The Committee also raises questions on the appropriateness of imposing a system on vehicles to limit evaporative emissions when filling up with fuel, while Europe has already put in place a suction device for fuel pumps.

5.7.

For heavy-duty vehicles, the limit values proposed by the Commission signify a break with the values in the Euro 6 Regulation, with reduction targets of, respectively, — 80 % for NOx and particulate number and up to — 95 % for CO. Furthermore, in view of their impact on the greenhouse effect, the Commission proposes to regulate the thresholds for CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) individually, with the latter being set at a particularly low level. Of course, these changes will require significant investment, which will have to be taken into account in the upcoming discussions on the CO2 trajectory of heavy-duty vehicles (1).

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) COM(2023) 88 final.

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/108

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims

(COM(2022) 732 final – 2022/0426(COD))

and the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (Fourth Report)

(COM(2022) 736 final)

(2023/C 228/15)

Rapporteur:	José Antonio MORENO DÍAZ
Co-rapporteur:	Pietro Vittorio BARBIERI

Referral	European Commission, 8.2.2023
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	3.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	125/01/01

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

Trafficking in human beings is a heinous crime and a serious violation of people’s fundamental rights. The European Union’s 2020 Security Strategy identifies the role of organised crime in human trafficking and the human cost involved.

1.2.

2011 saw the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. In 2021, the European Commission adopted the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings 2021-2025 and indicated that the implementation of the Directive should be evaluated in order to improve it.

1.3.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the fourth progress report highlighting the evolution of the phenomena as well as the proposal for amending the Anti-Trafficking Directive. The Directive seeks to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings and to protect victims. To this end, it is structured around three policy frameworks: (i) criminalising, investigating and prosecuting trafficking in human beings, including defining offences and establishing penalties and sanctions; (ii) assisting, supporting and protecting victims of trafficking in human beings; and (iii) preventing trafficking in human beings.

1.4.

The EESC welcomes the broadening of the definition of the different forms of exploitation. The EESC agrees that these offences should be understood as a non-exhaustive list, as, regrettably, exploitation takes on new facets every day. The Committee considers that Member States should understand the issue of trafficking in this way, providing a comprehensive overview of issues linked to exploitation.

1.5.

The EESC believes that the gender dimension in the content and implementation of the Directive should be strengthened, given that the vast majority of victims are women and girls. Similarly, attention should be paid to vulnerable situations that may facilitate recruitment and exploitation by criminal networks and others. In addition more attention is needed for other vulnerable groups including refugees, asylum seekers, and people who are undocumented or have a precarious residence status.

1.6.

1.7.

The EESC supports the development of a better sanctioning system by the Commission. As the evaluation showed that most Member States had not fully developed the optional sanctioning measures, the new mandatory system, which distinguishes between ordinary and aggravated offences, reinforces the fight against trafficking offences.

1.8.

The EESC also welcomes the fact that legal persons can be penalised by sanctions that can exclude them from receiving public aid or support, permanent temporary or permanent closure of establishments, or temporary or permanent disqualification from carrying out commercial activities. The EESC believes that the conscious use of exploitation services could be linked to the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, so that companies that benefit from the various forms of exploitation can also be held accountable.

1.9.

1.10.

The EESC calls on the Commission to include in its proposal for a Directive the need to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC (2) on the residence permit issued to third country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings, or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate irregular immigration and who cooperate with the competent authorities.

1.11.

The EESC reiterates the importance of working to prevent trafficking, emphasising the need to reduce demand for all forms of exploitation. As noted in the report, demand for cheap labour and prostitution continues to grow, despite them often being associated with existing human trafficking offences.

1.12.

The EESC agrees on the need to improve data collection, but also to finetune the tools in order to identify these offences more effectively. As highlighted in the report, it is clear that there are a significant number of unreported cases, a situation that must also be corrected and addressed through coordination and cooperation between the Member States, as well as with the European institutions.

1.13.

The EESC believes that the presentation of this proposal for a Directive should be used to raise awareness of and better communicate the need to strengthen the fight against trafficking in human beings. The infringement of rights that arises from different types of exploitation requires a comprehensive and multidimensional response, in which citizens play a key role in tackling the impunity and normalisation of these forms of abuse.

1.14.

The EESC recalls that the factors influencing trafficking in human beings include: ‘feminisation of poverty’; different access to study and resources for men and women; medical and health inequalities; the spread of gender-based violence worldwide; and the more general social disparity between men and women.

1.15.

The development of further national referral mechanisms by the Member States, involving civil society organisations in identifying victims and providing support services, is an important and necessary step. A further tool could be established for each Member State: an independent monitoring and assurance body, which includes a national rapporteur who monitors the effectiveness of the measures implemented by Member States in the fight against trafficking, carries out research, and engages with public and private stakeholders who deal with the phenomenon at various levels.

2. General comments

2.1.

Trafficking in human beings was defined internationally by the UN in 2000, when it stated that:

—

‘trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation (Article 3 — UN TIP Protocol — 2000);

—	exploitation is understood to mean ‘the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs’.

2.2.

2.3.

2011 saw the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (the Anti-Trafficking Directive). The adoption of this Directive marked an important step in harmonising rules between the Member States. In 2021, Commission adopted the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings 2021-2025 and indicated that the implementation of the Directive should be evaluated in order to improve its implementation.

2.4.

The evaluation carried out by the Commission covers the Directive’s transposition period (April 2013 to March 2022) and used data collected at European level as well as qualitative information resulting from discussions with experts and specialised bodies.

2.5.

The Commission’s internal evaluation highlighted the difficulties of correctly identifying the actual number of victims, as the figure of 55 314 cases identified between 2013 and 2022 is considered to be an underestimation. Sexual exploitation remains the predominant form of trafficking in human beings — accounting for 55,7 % of cases reported in 2021 — with labour exploitation becoming increasingly common, especially in sectors such as agriculture, construction and care services. Child victims account for 21 % of the total victims of trafficking, while women and girls account for 75 %.

2.6.

The evaluation and the report note that the level of prosecutions and convictions is very low, which can contribute to a culture of impunity among traffickers. Social media networks have opened up new opportunities for criminal networks operating in the EU, most of which are involved in human trafficking. The war in Ukraine could also lead to an increase in human smuggling and trafficking. Trafficking in human beings continues to be a low-risk crime with high profits.

2.7.

While the Directive served to establish a common framework of anti-trafficking legislation, it has also highlighted the difficulties of making progress in tackling certain forms of exploitation that are not covered by the definition of trafficking and cross-border offences. The Directive also identifies areas for improvement when it comes to investigating and prosecuting traffickers, as well as the need to improve law enforcement and judicial capacities to carry out financial investigations involving trafficking.

2.8.

While the Directive also focuses on protection from trafficking, the evaluation has shown that there is room for improvement, including on issues such as the application of the principles of non-prosecution and non-criminalisation of victims; the protection of victims throughout investigations and judicial proceedings; and the provision of assistance that matches the characteristics and needs of the victims, especially children and vulnerable groups. Poor data collection and processing has also been identified as a problem.

2.9.

The evaluation recognises the importance of the Directive as a turning point in the fight against trafficking in the EU. At the same time, it also highlights the need for progress in the development of tools to improve the monitoring, prevention, prosecution and court handling of trafficking and traffickers, as well as to improve assistance for victims.

2.10.

In this context, the proposal put forward by the Commission is a proposal to amend the Directive. The proposal seeks to provide a number of measures to improve the prevention of and fight against human trafficking in the EU, as well as to improve the protection of victims.

3. The Anti-Trafficking Directive

3.1.

The Anti-Trafficking Directive seeks to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings and to protect victims. To this end, it is structured around three policy frameworks: (i) criminalising, investigating and prosecuting trafficking in human beings, including defining offences and establishing penalties and sanctions; (ii) assisting, supporting and protecting victims of trafficking in human beings; and (iii) preventing trafficking in human beings.

3.2.

The EESC welcomes the proposal to amend this Directive, as it agrees with the need for further progress and improvement in the fight against trafficking in human beings and the protection of victims. The EESC agrees that the crime of human trafficking has become a growing threat, in a more challenging context than in that of 2011.

3.3.

The EESC welcomes the broadening of the definition of the different forms of exploitation, and commends the report for referring to these different forms. While sexual exploitation is still the most common form of exploitation in trafficking cases, followed by labour exploitation, there are other forms that are covered by the Directive (exploitation for begging, for the purpose of carrying out criminal activities, or trafficking in organs), some of which have also been growing in recent years. Similarly, other formulas have emerged that were not included in the Directive, but that could also be regarded as forms of trafficking, such as forced marriages, gestational surrogacy or illegal adoptions. The EESC would welcome the inclusion of a reference to ‘particular exploitative working conditions’, as reflected in the EU Employers Sanctions Directive. The EESC believes that more guidance from the Commission is needed on the definitions of all these different possible forms to ensure more uniform application by Member States.

3.4.

The EESC agrees that these offences should be understood as a non-exhaustive list, as, regrettably, exploitation takes on new facets every day. The Committee considers that Member States should understand the issue of trafficking in this way, providing a comprehensive overview of issues linked to exploitation.

3.5.

The EESC believes that the gender dimension in the content and implementation of the Directive should be strengthened, given that the vast majority of victims are women and girls. Similarly, attention should be paid to specific vulnerable groups including refugees, asylum seekers, and people who are undocumented or have a precarious residence status, as well as to vulnerable situations that may facilitate recruitment and exploitation by criminal networks. It points out that the factors that influence trafficking in human beings include: ‘feminisation of poverty’; different access to study and resources for men and women; medical and health inequalities; the spread of gender-based violence worldwide and the more general social disparity between men and women.

3.6.

The EESC welcomes the explicit reference to the online dimension of human trafficking offences. The use of new technologies has encouraged human trafficking offences, allowing and facilitating greater access to victims and their exploitation, and creating more difficulties when it comes to monitoring the profits derived from these offences. Social media networks have facilitated the recruitment and exploitation of victims, and have incorporated new forms of abuse into exploitation situations, such as the distribution of images, videos, etc.

3.7.

The EESC is in favour of the Commission developing a better sanctioning system. As the evaluation showed that most Member States have not fully developed the optional sanctioning measures, the new mandatory system, which distinguishes between ordinary and aggravated offences, reinforces the fight against trafficking offences.

3.8.

3.9.

The EESC views as a step forward the proposal for an amendment criminalising the act of using services or activities originating from exploitation in the knowledge that the person providing the service or activity is the victim of a trafficking offence — i.e. the conscious or knowing use of exploitation services — which may also be accompanied by tougher measures by the Member States. The EESC considers it important to give Member States more support with implementation in this matter, to assess the impact of this point in terms of both preventing and prosecuting trafficking in the transposition report to be presented by the Commission to the Parliament and the Council, in order to ensure that it has not had harmful effects on victims or vulnerable groups and that it has led to progress in tackling the ‘culture of impunity’ surrounding these crimes.

3.10.

The EESC deems it appropriate for the Commission to adapt the regulatory and sanctions framework to the online world. In this connection, it is particularly positive that the Directive includes the freezing and confiscation of assets, in accordance with the regulatory frameworks established by the European Union in this regard. Assets recovered from perpetrators should become available to compensate victims, and victims should be given priority in the ranking of creditors.

3.11.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission emphasises the need to improve cooperation on trafficking offences between different Member States. Cross-border cooperation is key and can be improved by exchanging information, undertaking joint actions, and training professional staff dealing with cross-border victims, especially law enforcement services.

3.12.

The development of further national referral mechanisms by the Member States, involving civil society organisations in identifying victims and providing support services, is an important and necessary step. The EESC believes that the Commission should support the Member States in setting up or strengthening these tools, which can be coordinated at European level to improve the care and protection of victims of trafficking. Progress in establishing a European referral tool is necessary in order to improve harmonisation in the care of and assistance to victims and in the development of support systems for victims. A further tool could be established for each Member State: an independent monitoring and assurance body, which includes a national rapporteur who monitors the effectiveness of the interventions implemented by Member States in the fight against trafficking, carries out research, and engages with public and private stakeholders who deal with the phenomenon at various levels.

3.13.

The EESC believes that the Directive should pay greater attention to victims of trafficking, and wishes to highlight the Member States’ obligation to care for and protect victims and ensure their social inclusion as far as possible. In addition to restating the need to avoid punishing victims of trafficking, the Directive should strengthen mechanisms and tools to assist and support victims, especially those from vulnerable groups such as minors minorities, refugees or undocumented migrants. It should also further explore and strengthen tools for victim redress and for prevention, including safe mechanisms for reporting and complaints and funds for compensation.

3.14.

Integration into the country of destination is achieved by providing victims of trafficking with personalised assistance, information, training and empowerment projects, through: reception in specific protected structures; compulsory issue of a residence permit, as a sine qua non for exiting trafficking; assistance, information and health prevention; psychological support and cultural mediation; social and legal information and advice; language and literacy courses; skills and competences; vocational guidance and training; integration into the labour market.

3.15.

The Directive does not address legislative changes concerning either the protection of victims’ rights or the assistance and support for trafficked persons, where there is still ample room for improvement. The EESC points out that Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime addresses, among other things, the specific needs of particular categories of victims of trafficking in human beings, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and child pornography.

3.16.

The EESC calls on the Commission to include in its proposal for amending the Directive the need to comply with Directive 2004/81/EC.

3.17.

‘Victim’s cooperation’ should be understood as the desire to join an individual social integration project for exiting exploitation. A residence permit cannot be granted solely to those who decide to cooperate with the judicial authorities, as the alternatives to trafficking — i.e. access to subnational skilling and empowerment services — inevitably require a residence permit to be issued.

3.18.

Victims are reluctant to testify against their traffickers. They often live in a state of permanent blackmail and giving a testimony forces them to risk their lives and that of their families. In that regard, it is important to remember that the consent of a victim of trafficking in human beings to exploitation is irrelevant (Article 3(b) — UN TIP Protocol — 2000).

3.19.

The EESC also calls on the Commission to make progress in implementing the recommendations contained in its publication The EU rights of victims of trafficking in human beings (4) so that Member States always grant residence permits to victims of trafficking in the following cases:

—	where the presence of the victim is necessary for the investigation or judicial proceedings;

—	where the victim has shown a clear willingness to cooperate;

—	where the victim has terminated any relationship with the perpetrator(s) of the trafficking offence;

—	where the victim does not pose a risk to public order or security.

The EESC also invites Member States to make more use of the opportunity to offer residence permits to victims on humanitarian or personal grounds, even when the above conditions are not fulfilled.

3.20.

The EESC reiterates the importance of working to prevent trafficking, emphasising the need to reduce demand all forms of exploitation. Demand for cheap labour and prostitution continues to grow, despite them often being associated with existing human trafficking offences.

3.21.

The EESC believes that the numerous activities that seek to improve information and awareness regarding these issues should be strengthened, including by exploring new communication tools, training, educational programmes and awareness-raising campaigns to strengthen the fight against trafficking in all Member States.

3.22.

The EESC agrees on the need to improve data collection, but also to improve the tools to identify these crimes more effectively. It is clear that there are a significant number of unreported cases, a situation that must also be corrected and addressed through coordination and cooperation between the Member States, as well as with the European institutions. The proposal for an annual statistical report on trafficking could help to provide better data and to improve efforts and also improve public awareness of these offences.

3.23.

Similarly, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s recognition of the need to provide an annual report on the work of the Member States on anti-trafficking efforts to the Parliament and the European Council, highlighting the implementation of the measures and their impact.

3.24.

The EESC believes that the presentation of this proposal to amend the Directive should be used to raise awareness of and better communicate the need to strengthen the fight against trafficking in human beings. The infringement of rights that arises from different types of exploitation requires a comprehensive and multidimensional response, in which citizens play a key role in tackling the impunity and normalisation of these forms of abuse.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19).

(3) Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57).

(4) The EU rights of victims of trafficking in human beings

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/114

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC

(COM(2022) 677 final – 2022/0396 (COD))

(2023/C 228/16)

Rapporteur:	István KOMORÓCZKI
Co-rapporteur:	Panagiotis GKOFAS

Referral	European Parliament, 13.3.2023 Council, 8.3.2023
Legal basis	Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	13.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	153/0/1

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

Waste generated from packaging continues to increase globally and is highly detrimental to our health, lives, economies and the planet, when not properly managed. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) therefore welcomes this initiative and calls on the European Commission to address issues related to packaging, packaging waste and packaging policies in a coordinated manner, and to harmonise the rules across the EU.

1.2.

Evidence-based policy measures are needed in order to ensure the best environmental outcome. Climate change challenges provide an opportunity for Europe to build a sustainable and future-oriented industrial base. The EESC recommends that all upcoming policy initiatives should be based on scientific evidence and on a sound understanding of their real impact on the environment. It is strategically helpful to support the use of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology as a tool to review the environmental impact of products throughout their entire life cycle.

1.3.

The EESC supports ongoing efforts to decrease packaging waste, as it has a highly negative impact on the environment. At the same time, it regrets that the proposal does not include a thorough analysis of expected impacts on the environment, human health and economic operators. Packaging plays a key role in ensuring the safety, health and quality of food. From this perspective, environmental protection as well as the safety of consumers should be addressed with the new Regulation.

1.4.

The EESC emphasises that reusing and refilling are far from the best choices, from a climate-change and environmental point of view. Due to long transport distances compared to local collection and recycling, the increased logistics will have a negative effect. Cleaning refillable bottles or reusable tableware increases energy consumption, emissions and water consumption. The EESC again regrets the lack of a proper impact assessment here.

1.5.

The economic impact will clearly depend on the exact wording of the envisaged delegated acts, which are to be adopted only within five years after the adoption of the Regulation. The mere fact that the concrete parameters of the rules will only be known after the adoption of the proposed Regulation creates huge business uncertainties and a serious risk to the investment and innovation cycle.

1.6.

The Committee calls on all relevant stakeholders, such as social dialogue partners, economic operators, workers, consumers, consumer protection organisations, environmental organisations and the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform to be involved in the implementation of the new Regulation. Transposing the updated Regulation into national legislations should not impose unnecessary administrative or operational burdens to SMEs. In this regard, it is important to ensure that the deadlines for implementation and entry into force are adequate. The EESC points out that the Regulation replaces the role of recycling established by the circular economy package with Article 26, which is applied directly to all economic operators, regardless of whether or not it is environmentally efficient, combined with an enforced restriction of the use of packaging, regardless of whether or not it will lead to a health hazard or to the deterioration of the environment.

1.7.

When it comes to the ‘recycling at scale’ criteria, the EESC proposes raising the percentage of packaging waste recycled at scale (packaging collected, sorted and recycled in EU Member States) from 75 % to 90 % of the EU population, and at the same time, covering at least two-thirds of EU Member States by 2030, to achieve effective implementation. The Committee also supports the implementation of recyclability performance grades and phasing-out the worst-performing Grade E packaging by 2030.

1.8.

The EESC recommends mandatory recycled content targets to only be considered and applied for specific packaging materials, where this could lead to higher use of recyclates (e.g. plastics). In the case of steel packaging, mandatory recycled content targets would be detrimental and could lead to a disruption in the steel scrap market. In addition, the criteria for recyclability of packaging should include the requirements of design for recycling, separate collection, effective sorting, and the ability of the material to be recycled multiple times. Furthermore, any proposed waste-reduction targets set in the Regulation should be set per material (material-specific targets), taking into account their specificities and recycling rates.

1.9.

The EESC also questions the effectiveness of a flat 15 % target, as this has a discriminatory impact on consumers from countries that have a relatively low production per capita of packaging waste. Statistical figures show that production of packaging waste in countries with higher consumption is up to three times higher than in countries with low consumption, yet all countries without distinction are expected to reduce the amount of packaging per consumer by 15 %. Instead, the target should be calculated on the basis of the number of inhabitants, economic activity, industrial production and the income of the inhabitants.

1.10.

The EESC calls for applying and enforcing protection and supporting schemes (public education, trainings, collective bargaining, compensation schemes and transfers to other industries) for workers employed in the industries in transition and which will soon be affected by the implementation of the revised Regulation to transfer to other industries.

1.11.

The EESC encourages Members States to launch strategies to develop their repair industries and shops by providing incentives to invest in repair machines, lowering the price of spare parts, and creating synergies across sectors.

1.12.

Packaging is a fast-developing industry involving many places of work. It is therefore imperative to carry out impact assessments and to diligently monitor the new Regulations on a regular basis in the Member States, both at central and local government level, as they are key for assessing the impacts on economic viability, work places and environmental sustainability.

1.13.

The European Commission is called on to adopt a differentiated, customised framework to evaluate, monitor and compare packaging strategies for various products. In order to decrease the amount of packaging waste, the actual need for packaging should be regularly assessed, and optimised solutions revisited. With regard to the well-functioning national deposit return systems it will be important to find ways where the new EU bar-codes and the existing national ones can continue and operate in parallel.

1.14.

Consumers should be involved in and incentivised for reusing, returning or recycling packaging material in an optimal manner, through positive and negative compensation mechanisms. Consumers will play an important role in the deposit return system, in reusing and re-filling, and the EESC calls for awareness raising and educational campaigns which will enable consumers to better see and understand their role.

1.15.

The EESC calls on the Council and the European Parliament to closely work together with local and regional authorities and economic operators in order to find the best ways to put in practice the labelling system.

1.16.

The quality and quantity of waste determine its potential for recycling. The EESC calls on Member States to evaluate the environmental and economic implications of the necessary waste-management activities during the planning phase.

1.17.

In terms of legislative principles, the Regulation mixes a norm which directly affects individual economic operators with a directive which addresses framework objectives to Member States. Therefore it should be split in two legislative acts. For the first, as a directive setting up the targets for the Member States in terms of management of packaging and packaging waste. For the second, as a Regulation on basic requirements for packaging and requirements for their recyclability and labelling.

1.18.

With regards to waste reduction, the EESC recommends that the review of packaging and packaging waste legislation be accompanied by a review of the Landfill Directive (Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1)), in order to reduce the amount of landfilled waste.

2. Background and foundations

The need to continuously consider the impacts of packaging on the environment

2.1.

Globally, most packaging is single-use and either thrown away or recycled instead of reused. Environment authorities in large industrialised nations estimate that close to half of all municipal solid waste comprises food and materials used in food packaging (2).

2.2.

Due to the waste of valuable resources and the pollution caused by this consumption and disposal system, our health, the environment, sustainability, and the global climate are all at serious risk.

2.3.

It is therefore key that the European Commission regularly monitor packaging waste, as well as its collection, management and reuse, with all relevant stakeholders.

2.4.

Industries in transition, as well as employees and small owners in some sectors under scrutiny, are expected to face severe difficulties and income or job losses due to a decrease in total turnover caused by the substitution effect. Social protection schemes and re-training initiatives could reduce this impact.

2.5.

Likewise, some regions that rely on certain packaging technologies and industrial production might experience job losses and migration from both highly and less-specialised workers in the short term. Customised policies at local level are essential for avoiding brain drain and the desertification of rural and industrial areas.

2.6.

It is crucial to monitor the impact of the implementation of legislation through a permanent assessment mechanism in order to review the records of each country, exchange best practices and propose parametric revisions. Potential upgrades in the technological capacity of industries to reuse and recycle specific materials must be taken into account (e.g. biodegradable plastics), with a special focus on public health and long-term impacts on the environment.

Tools supported by the European Commission for managing issues related to packaging and packaging materials

2.7.

The Commission’s draft Regulation details the key roles that digitalisation and sustainability play in reducing packaging and packaging waste. It is essential to align them, as they are key for achieving the Green Deal targets and for enhancing Europe’s resilience, future prosperity and sustainability.

Natural and energy resources for packaging — concerns and solutions

2.8.

Modern food packaging — a major use of packaging materials — offers a means of making food dependable, hygienic, shelf-stable and safe. However, most food packaging is still single-use and cannot be fully recycled, if not properly separated by other material fractions and collected, because they are either soiled with food, too small or multilayer.

2.9.

Each packaging type requires numerous resources, including energy, water, chemicals, petroleum, minerals, wood and textiles. In addition, its production frequently results in wastewater and sludge with harmful chemicals, and air emissions of greenhouse gases, heavy metals and particles.

2.10.

Various man-made and synthetic materials, including ceramics, glass, metal, paper, paperboard, cardboard, wax, wood, and increasingly plastics, are used to create modern food packaging. Most of this packaging is made of glass, stiff plastic, paper, and paperboard. Even though some more recent plastics are created from corn and other plant materials, the majority are still made from petroleum and contain additives such as polymers.

2.11.

It is pivotal that the European Commission set out in the proposal a minimum, mandatory bio-based content of at least 60 % for compostable packaging. Paperboards are frequently lined with plastic that is not visible, and many different forms of packaging are labelled with text using printer inks.

2.12.

The increased use of different kinds of packaging, together with low reuse and recycling rates, may hinder the creation of a low-carbon circular economy in the EU.

2.13.

The EESC believes that compostable packaging which is safe for contact with food is the most suitable solution, and plays a key role in ensuring more waste is biodegradable. It would also decrease the amount of non-biodegradable plastics, which otherwise contaminate compost.

3. Plastic packaging

3.1.

The UN has deemed oceanic plastic pollution ‘a planetary calamity’, mainly due to the amount of food packaging made of plastic that has found its way into rivers (3). This raises concerns for all aquatic species.

3.2.

Member States will need to consider a new approach to plastics based on the circular economy. They can promote the development of circular packaging choices by opting for other materials or specific polymer materials to ensure a much better level of recyclability. When recyclability of plastics is not option, it should be used as generation for biofuel.

4. Permanent materials, recycling data and issues with refill targets of alcoholic drink bottles

4.1.

Different food packaging materials have different characteristics and properties which affect their recyclability potential. Materials such as aluminium, glass and steel are considered permanent materials, as they show minimal degradation during service life and can be endlessly recycled without losing quality or inherent material properties.

4.2.

Interest in permanent materials has grown significantly and in parallel with circular-economy thinking. Such materials need to be properly recognised in future legislation, with future policies efficiently supporting recycling them.

4.3.

Fibre-based and other natural material-based packaging can support growth decoupled from resource use. It is made from renewable materials, whilst being durable, attractive, recyclable and biodegradable. Recent studies have indicated that fibre packaging can be recycled in excess of 25 times, demonstrating it is an essential component of the circular economy.

4.4.

The recycling rate for glass packaging in the EU in 2020 reached an average of 76 % (4), with some room for improvement in collection schemes and sorting in some Member States. In 2017 the rates were 95 % in Sweden, 88,4 % in Germany, 78 % in Italy and 61 % in France (5).

4.5.

The proposal lays down mandatory targets for reusing and refilling alcoholic drink bottles. However, key economic operators are of the firm opinion that these targets may pose significant challenges, both in terms of supply and public health risks, given that bottles are normally used by consumers for other practical purposes. This mandatory reuse might cause problems, partly due to infection from the development of pathogens and bacteria, among other things.

5. Water and land pollution from food packaging

5.1.

When packaging is discarded in landfills, especially plastic packaging, in addition to unacceptable heavy contamination in the ground and the environment, chemicals from the materials, such as inks and colours from labelling will also leak into the groundwater and soil.

5.2.

Plastic waste in particular frequently travels to the planet’s most remote regions, endangering human, bird, and marine life. Plastic pollution in oceans has gotten so bad that the head of ocean affairs for the UN has called it a planetary crisis.

5.3.

Ocean contamination is just one of the negative effects of plastic on the ecosystem. According to one study, one-third of all plastic is thrown away and ends up in waterways or soil. Others indicate that the amount of microplastic pollution in soils worldwide is between 4 and 23 times worse than the amount of microplastic pollution in our oceans.

5.4.

Microplastics in the soil will negatively affect the behaviour of soil animals (such as earthworms), and thus spread illnesses and produce other harmful impacts. Microplastics have also been found in new born babies. In addition, degrading plastics absorb harmful substances such pesticides like DDT once they are in the land and waterways.

6. Pollution of air and oceans from food packaging

6.1.

Food packaging waste that cannot be composted or recycled often ends up in landfills, emitting air emissions, including greenhouse gases. Landfills release methane, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide. In contrast, incinerators release mercury, lead, hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxides, nitrous oxides, particulate matter and dioxins, which are the most dangerous compounds.

6.2.

Most coffee cups and lids, coffee pods, Styrofoam containers, plastic bottles and caps, plastic wraps, six-pack holders, and plastic grocery bags are designed for single use. However, if they are not recycled, they clogs our waterways, where animals mistake them for food or become entangled.

6.3.

All the plastic floating around the oceans is incredibly harmful to animals. Ocean Conservancy (6) says: ‘Plastic has been found in 59 % of sea birds like albatross and pelicans, in 100 % of sea turtle species and more than 25 % of fish sampled from seafood markets’.

6.4.

While billions of pounds of plastic are made of trillions of pieces swirling around the oceans and carried along by the currents, only about 5 % of that plastic mass is visible on the surface; the rest floats below or has settled on the ocean floor.

6.5.

The EESC believes that it is pivotal to encourage the organic recycling of food waste and of compostable food packaging waste, considering also that the separate collection for organic recycling of food waste will be mandatory from 31 December 2023. Livestock residues such as manure and slurry give the possibility to generate organic fertiliser, biogas or biomethane.

7. General comments

7.1.

The EESC supports the European Commission’s ambition to revise the requirements for packaging and packaging waste, in order to limit the amount, the size and the weight of packaging on the EU Single Market, prevent the production of useless packaging waste, support high-quality recycling, and increase recyclability and the reuse of packaging.

7.2.

Any revision of the packaging and packaging waste legislation should be fully aligned with the overarching objectives of the EU Green Deal (climate neutrality, sustainable use of natural resources and environmental protection), and should be consistent with related legislation, such as the circular economy action plan, the Waste Framework Directive, the Single-Use Plastics Directive, the Ecodesign Directive, and EU legislation on food contact materials.

7.3.

The EESC emphasises the need for strict criteria on packaging recyclability. Packaging should be considered recyclable where the packaging can be recycled multiple times in a permanent material loop, and not simply where design criteria are met and the materials are separately collected and sorted without contamination.

7.4.

The EESC believes that the percentage criteria for packaging to be recycled at scale should be complemented by a quantitative requirement covering a sufficient number of EU Member States.

7.5.

The Committee supports the implementation of the recyclability performance grades, based on the ‘design for recycling’ criteria for packaging categories. The EESC welcomes harmonisation for all materials, and hopes for the phasing-out of packaging to be awarded a Performance Grade E by 2030.

7.6.

In 2020, the average EU-wide recycling rate reached 85,5 % for steel packaging, 74 % for glass packaging, and 82 % for paper packaging. The circular material loops for these materials are relatively effective. However, the adoption of a recycled content target for steel packaging, for instance, could destabilise and fragment the secondary raw materials/scrap market, and have a negative environmental impact. Mandatory recycled content targets should be applicable only for specific packaging groups and materials, where their adoption could lead to market improvements and an increased use of recyclates (e.g. plastics).

7.7.

The EESC highlights the fact that market shares of different packaging materials in the overall volume of Member States’ packaging waste should be taken into account when assessing the potential for waste reduction. Reduction targets should be set for each packaging material (plastic, paper, ferrous metals, aluminium, etc.), taking into consideration the evolution of recycling rates over time, to ensure a level playing field and to prevent unnecessarily substituting certain packaging materials for alternatives with low recyclability.

7.8.

EU Member States should be effectively incentivised to support new investments in infrastructure and recycling technologies, as well as in research and development.

7.9.

The EESC believes that the review of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive should also be accompanied by a revision of the Landfill Directive, in order to decrease disposing of packaging waste in landfills. Decreasing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills would be in line with the EU’s commitment to recycling and to reducing waste.

7.10.

The revised Regulation must respect and apply the principle of material neutrality, i.e. allow for a choice of a packaging material based on its suitability for particular use, its technical and structural characteristics and its overall environmental profile.

8. Special comments

8.1.

In addition to the proposed legislation, including that on labelling, communicating, collecting, sorting and reusability elements, the EESC believes that Member States should consider introducing restrictions in packaging material production and perhaps complemented by fiscal instruments in order to meet Green Deal deadlines.

8.2.

The EESC proposes that the EU and Member States support by all available means the recyclability and reuse of packaging, either by providing incentives for using recyclable or renewable material alternatives or disincentivising packaging materials with low recyclability characteristics.

8.3.

Economic operators involved in this important sector, with major responsibilities for employees and their workplaces, should be financially supported by the Member States in the transition process.

8.4.

Clear national and international policies should be established to identify waste producers whose waste is transported to other Member States.

8.5.

Member States should encourage stakeholders to develop new ideas for packaging and proper labelling to meet Green Deal targets and to avoid any fraud related to original European products.

8.6.

The role of municipalities in waste collection and waste management should be clearly defined to avoid having multiple different waste-management procedures and infrastructures.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1).

(2) https://foodprint.org/issues/the-environmental-impact-of-food-packaging/

(3) https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25333710-100-pollution-is-the-forgotten-global-crisis-and-we-need-to-tackle-it-now/

(4) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1258851/glass-recycling-rate-in-europe/

(5) https://feve.org/glass_recycling_stats_2018/

(6) https://oceanconservancy.org/about/

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/121

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures

(COM(2022) 748 final – 2022/0432 (COD))

(2023/C 228/17)

Rapporteur:

John COMER

Referral	European Parliament, 13.2.2023 Council, 10.2.2023
Legal basis	Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	13.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	145/0/0

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC):

1.1.

highlights that while it is possible for the EU to propose an update to the United Nations Globally Harmonized System (UN GHS) in line with the revised CLP Regulation, there is no guarantee that the EU proposal will be accepted by all parties. A temporary divergence could become a long-term issue. It seems it would be virtually impossible to implement the new proposals regarding online sales originating outside the EU unless it is accepted by the UN GHS.

1.2.

believes that it is vital that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has sufficient resources, expertise and staff to implement the revised Regulation. In particular, adding new hazard classes will require the ECHA and Member States to increase their resources to specifically handle the increased workload.

1.3.

regrets that there is no specific provision to alert the consumer in the situation where the chemical ingredients in a branded product are changed but the brand name remains the same. Consumers using a familiar brand will not check it unless it contains a special alert on the label. Manufacturers of household detergents frequently change the ingredients, for example changing enzymes and solvents. The consumer should be alerted to such changes where the brand name remains the same.

1.4.

suggests that the Commission’s framework for monitoring the implementation of the revised CLP Regulation needs to carefully evaluate the impact on essential value chains involving chemicals so that they are not negatively impacted. The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) suggests that as many as 12 000 substances might be affected by the proposed changes to the CLP and the GRA (generic approach to risk management). As a result, many products that consumers and professionals rely on may no longer be available on the market.

1.5.

calls for particular attention to be devoted to the well-being of those who work in the chemical industry. Health and safety must always be prioritised. Workers in the chemical industry must be given intensive training so that they have a full understanding of the chemicals that they are in contact with in their work. All equipment needs to be properly maintained. Data from the Major Accident Reporting System (eMars) states that on average over 30 industrial accidents occur each year in the 12 000 registered high hazard industrial establishments in the EU.

1.6.	stresses that the precautionary approach is important in the protection of health and the environment by using existing data from structurally related chemicals allowing a precautionary decision to be made before there is full scientific evidence of risk.

1.7.

notes that the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) report (July 2022) on chemicals legislation found three main bottlenecks in the chemical regulatory process:

—	industry groups submitting dossiers without complete or reliable data,

—	failure of EU scientists to act decisively on a precautionary basis,

—	Commission delays in processing dossiers despite the fact that it is legally obliged to draft decisions within three months.

2. Commission proposal

2.1.

The Commission is proposing a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (the CLP Regulation).

The objective of the CLP Regulation is to establish a high level of health and environmental protection. It also enables the free movement of chemical substances, mixtures and articles. The CLP Regulation requires manufacturers, importers and downstream users of chemical substances and mixtures to label and package hazardous chemicals before placing them on the market. The CLP Regulation establishes legally binding hazard identification and classification rules. This Regulation sets out common rules on labelling to properly inform consumers and workers regarding the use of dangerous products.

2.2.

The Commission says that the EU has been successful in creating an efficient single market for chemicals.

A revision of the CLP Regulation is required, according to the Commission, because of some weaknesses and legal gaps in the existing CLP Regulation. The proposals include the introduction of new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors and other dangerous chemicals (on the basis of a delegated act), specific rules for refillable chemicals, better communication, including online, through clearer and more readable labelling, the possibility for the Commission to develop classification proposals, and improved and faster processes.

2.3.

The EU is committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Commission believes that this revision of the CLP Regulation will contribute to several SDGs including those aimed at ensuring good health and well-being, sustainable consumption and production patterns and clean water and sanitation. For the Commission, this review is also an ‘important outcome’ of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (a part of the Green Deal).

2.4.

The Commission states that there is a need to better identify and classify hazardous chemicals because of the risk posed to human health and the environment. Procedural inefficiencies and shortcomings in hazardous chemical communication must be addressed. There is a high number of erroneous or obsolete classifications of substances in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) inventory. There are many reasons for this including the failure to review and update classifications and changes in the harmonised classification of component substances. The preparation of inaccurate ‘safety data sheets’ (SDSs) can also be a problem. The information in an SDS can have very serious downstream effects, especially if it is inaccurate. In addition, substances that were once defined as non-hazardous can in the light of further research be defined as hazardous. For example, boric acid was once categorised as non-hazardous. Subsequently it was categorised as very hazardous (toxic for reproduction). Consequently, new SDSs were required.

2.5.

As part of the CLP Regulation Revision package, the Commission is proposing a delegated act to enable substances and mixtures that have endocrine disrupting (ED), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB), persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT), or very persistent and very mobile (vPvM) properties to be classified into new established hazard classes.

2.6.

The Revision proposes to allow the Commission to initiate and fund more harmonised classification dossiers.

2.7.

It is proposed to improve the method whereby companies classify substances, including an obligation to provide reasons for diverging notified classifications in the ECHA inventory and an early-stage deadline for updates of notifications.

2.8.

The transparency and predictability of the proposals that the various players intend to submit to the ECHA will be improved as they will be obliged to communicate such intentions to the ECHA.

2.9.

The Revision proposes to improve communication on hazardous chemicals:

—

The proposal aims to make labelling clearer and more understandable to consumers, and less burdensome for suppliers and easier to enforce. There will be obligatory formatting rules to increase the readability of labels, including a minimum font size. The broader use of fold out labels will be allowed.

—	There will be specific rules for the sale of chemicals in refillable containers. This system will be limited to chemicals posing less severe hazards.

—	Voluntary digital labelling of chemicals will be allowed but information on the protection of health and the protection of the environment must remain on the on-pack label.

—	Derogations will be introduced for chemicals sold to consumers in bulk such as fuel and items sold in very small packaging such as writing instruments.

2.10.

The Revision proposal also deals with legal gaps and ambiguities that apply to online sales and poison centre notifications.

2.11.

Online sales will require a supplier to ensure that a substance or mixture placed on the EU market meets the requirements of the CLP and this will include online sales from outside the EU.

2.12.

The provision for notification to poison centres will be clarified. All relevant players will have to make sure that they notify poison centres across the EU.

2.13.

An important change is also proposed in the area of advertising. There will be an obligation to ensure that the advertisement of hazardous substances and mixtures contains all the information that is most important in terms of safety and protection of the environment. Hazard class, hazard statements and pictograms should be included in the advertisement.

2.14.

The main actions listed in the Chemicals Strategy which the Commission aims to address in this proposal include legally binding hazard identification of endocrine disrupters (based on the WHO definition), building on criteria already developed for pesticides and biocides and applying it across all legislation. The new hazard classes and criteria are targeted to fully address environmental toxicity, persistency, mobility and bioaccumulation.

3. General comments

3.1.

The EESC welcomes the proposed targeted revision of the CLP Regulation aimed at ensuring that the CLP Regulation operates effectively and efficiently.

3.2.

The EESC welcomes the proposed delegated act to establish new hazard classes concerning EDs, as well as substances and products that do not break down in the environment and can accumulate in living organisms or risk entry into the water system including drinking water.

3.3.

A major deficiency in the present CLP Regulation is the fact that many chemicals sold online in the EU do not meet the CLP legal requirements. This poses a risk to human health and the environment. The EESC welcomes the proposal which attempts to deal with this issue.

3.4.

It is not clear how the proposed change in the rules concerning advertising is going to be enforced. Will the entity publishing an advertisement in breach of the rules be liable to sanctions as well as the seller of the product who placed the advertisement?

3.5.

In a non-paper published in May 2022, the EEB claims that ‘companies routinely submit incomplete or flawed data on the hazardous effects of their chemicals, yet they still gain market access (disrespecting the “no data, no market” rule). As a consequence, the poor quality of registration dossiers by industry … strongly hampers regulation.’

3.6.

The EEB and various NGOs in a joint letter to the Commission dated 27 February 2023 stated that ‘the reforms of the REACH and CLP regulatory systems are a crucial opportunity to address the current undeniable data gaps and the need to speed up regulatory action on harmful chemicals. With this letter we would like to express our serious concerns about these data gaps, which hamper an effective identification and risk management of the chemicals of most concern.’

3.7.

The REACH and CLP revisions are complementary. For example, new information requirements under a revised REACH will provide information on the intrinsic properties of substances allowing their classification under the new hazard classes in the revised CLP.

3.8.

In order not to breach competition law, the ECHA has advised companies to exchange information with caution, which means limiting the exchange of information to what is strictly necessary so as to avoid costly duplication of tests.

4. Specific comments

4.1.

The EEB published a report on chemicals legislation on 11 July 2022, which found three main bottlenecks in the chemical regulatory process:

—	Industry groups submitting dossiers without complete or reliable data.

—	Failure of EU scientists to act decisively on a precautionary basis.

—	Commission delays in processing dossiers despite the fact that it is legally obliged to draft decisions within three months.

4.2.

The EEB suggested that there should be binding decision deadlines, new sanctions on organisations that do not provide all the necessary data, and that a precautionary approach should be used in chemical regulation.

4.3.

The Revision has set deadlines for updating labels after a change in classification, and proposes that the six-month deadline should also apply where a new hazard is additional to an existing hazard. Where there are divergences between more recent and obsolete classifications, notifiers should be required to update their notifications within six months after a change in classification.

4.4.

The ECHA, in its report of June 2022, states that ‘…hazards need to be confirmed before risk management actions can start and more data is often first needed’ and that therefore ‘Companies need to proactively update their registrations with up-to-date information…’.

4.5.

Up-to-date information is critical to the success of this process and therefore all players must buy into this process in the interests of human health and the environment. Sanctions should apply where there is clear evidence of undue delay or in cases of the submission of inadequate data.

4.6.

The ECHA will need to expand its staff numbers if it is to efficiently implement this proposed new Regulation. In addition, many Member States have poor resources, which restricts their capability to submit dossiers.

4.7.

Enforcement of the CLP is a matter for national authorities, which includes checking whether the substance has been registered or pre-registered, and verifying the accuracy of safety data sheets (SDSs). The ECHA has no enforcement responsibilities. The ECHA does, however, host a forum for the exchange of information between Member States on enforcement.

4.8.

The Commission is currently developing a framework to monitor the functioning of the revised regulation. It is vitally important that the impact on value chains relying on chemicals and the overall impact on the single market for chemicals forms part of the monitoring process.

4.9.

The new provisions for online sales require that there is a supplier established in the EU to ensure that the chemical substance meets the requirements of the regulation. This also applies to online sales from outside the EU into the EU. This proposal aims to prevent the consumer becoming a de jure and de facto importer from outside the EU. There is no clear proposal as to how this could be successfully implemented. Indeed, it would seem virtually impossible to implement such an arrangement until such time as the revised CLP Regulation is aligned with the UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UN GHS).

4.10.

Manufacturers who change the ingredients in a branded product but without changing the brand name should be required to put a special alert on the label so that the consumer would be made aware of the chemical changes in the product.

4.11.

The European Chemical Industry Council (2) believes that the changes to the CLP will have impacts across all value chains and that it is essential that the Commission perform a careful analysis to identify whether and how strategic and essential value chains may be negatively impacted by CLP reform.

4.12.

As the precautionary principle indicates that action should be taken to reduce risk from chemicals in the face of uncertain but suspected risks of causing harm, then action should be taken before there is full scientific proof of risk.

4.13.

The safety of people who work in the chemical industry is of paramount importance. Frequent assessment of safety in the workplace should take place, while ensuring that all health and safety protocols are fully and properly implemented.

4.14.

The improper handling of chemicals and the omission of adequate risk assessments are serious issues that need to be highlighted in the workplace. Workers in the chemical industry must be given intensive training so that they have a full understanding of the chemicals that they are in contact with in the course of their work. It is essential that all equipment in chemical plants is properly maintained so as to protect workers from injury or death due to faulty equipment. According to data from the Major Accident Reporting System (eMars), on average over 30 industrial accidents take place each year in the 12 000 registered high hazard industrial establishments in the EU. The data does not include accidents in hazardous facilities not covered by the Seveso Directive. Pipelines and transport are also excluded.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1).

(2) www.cefic.org

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/126

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a Strong and Sustainable EU Algae Sector

(COM(2022) 592 final)

(2023/C 228/18)

Rapporteur:

Zsolt KÜKEDI

Referral	European Commission, 8.2.2023
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Plenary Assembly decision	27.4.2023
Legal basis	Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure
Section responsible	Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	13.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	147/0/1

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the Commission communication on creating a strong and sustainable EU algae sector. Algae can contribute in many ways to mitigating the effects of climate change and to sustainably feeding and supplying energy to the world’s rapidly expanding population.

1.2.

Opinions on algae are common among the European population. Algae proliferation is considered a cause for concern, particularly in areas neighbouring polluted waters. At the same time, algae are also seen as a possible solution to the problems of many countries, partly thanks to European innovation. The EESC points out that in the context of creating an algae sector, it is necessary to increase confidence in products and pay more attention to ensuring they are safe.

1.3.

The EESC notes that the communication does not emphasise sufficiently the possibility of a food source created in freshwater conditions. Moreover, algae can not necessarily only be a source of food in freshwater conditions, but can also extend to eutrophicated freshwater, wastewater from thermal baths and other wastewater, where it can serve environmental or energy purposes. This vast, but underutilised, resource should be used to serve Europe’s development, in particular the EU’s rural areas.

1.4.

Macroalgae in marine coastal waters can generate additional revenue for fishing enterprises. Extracting them reduces eutrophication and can generate valuable ecosystem products and services, including by providing new habitats for certain species. The freshwater macroalgae sector is just starting to take off and should be considered in upcoming policy documents.

1.5.

In the EU, continuous cultivation of microalgae is mainly possible in a closed reactor, which implies a huge need for capital. However, it is very productive and reliable, with predictable quality. The cultivation of microalgae is also possible in freshwaters and lakes in southern Europe.

1.6.

For some Member States that do not have a maritime coastline (e.g. Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia) microalgae production is pretty much the only option available. At the same time, some of these countries have a high level of scientific and technological knowledge that should be used when creating a European algae sector.

1.7.

Macroalgae and microalgae, which offer a wide range of possibilities and have different characteristics, impacts and regulatory needs, should not be treated in the same way. The EESC understands that there is a reasonable balance between macroalgae and microalgae in the communication, but it recommends examining how the freshwater part of the algae sector could bring benefits to certain Member States (those without a maritime coastline). The EESC recommends taking a more balanced and integrated approach to related sectors, making a clear distinction between the competences of the EU and of the Member States and, if need be, protecting the internal market from cheap import products.

1.8.

Unlike the availability and price of energy (in terms of both production and import), fertilisers and feed ingredients, increases in organic waste and reductions in arable land, food supply in the EU is not yet a problem. Technologies that can address these urgent problems in general, including production and exploitation of algae, deserve extensive support.

1.9.

The EESC notes that the communication sees enormous economic potential for algae, but cultivation theoretically presents even greater potential and is thus capable of meeting growing demand. However, European funds may only be used for viable and sustainable economic solutions, so the EESC asks the Commission to pay particular attention to the economic efficiency of algae production, as well as to the environmental and social dimensions.

1.10.

As proposed by the EESC, during the establishment of the algae industry, knowledge and awareness of this new industry must be promoted for the sake of social and market acceptance, and therefore asks the European Commission that this proposed measure be given special emphasis through representative surveys, country-specific action plans and the involvement and even creation of sectoral organisations.

1.11.

The EESC recommends that the European Commission, the Member States involved and the algae industry consider the following proposals in relation to creating an algae sector:

—	integrate algae production into existing value chains of agricultural food, animal feed and industrial and energy raw materials;

—	freshwater-based algae production should be given more emphasis in the communication;

—	launch a standardisation process covering all algae, which could also include the development of an integrated marine product strategy;

—	based on administrative best practices, end fragmentation of legislation and extend authorisation models to algae;

—	include the different algae species in the EU food catalogue;

—	bridge gaps in technical knowledge, technology and innovation through an ambitious funding programme for research in the short and medium term;

—	set up and finance the operation of propagating material banks and ensure that raw materials are available at reasonable prices for algae producers and R & D projects;

—	the economic aspects of production and potential uses must be reviewed in order to create an economically viable algae sector; the internal market must be protected from cheap imported products.

1.12.

The EESC calls on the EU institutions to start prioritising the issue of water and to develop a Blue Pact for Europe to preserve, make better use of and adequately address issues relating to water resources. In this context, the creation of an EU algae sector is an important step.

2. General comments

2.1.

On 15 November 2022, the European Commission published its proposal Towards a Strong and Sustainable EU Algae Sector (1). The communication proposes the development of new and sustainable ways of feeding and supplying with sustainable energy the world’s rapidly growing population. The communication emphasises that in order to ensure the security of supply of raw materials and energy, we must use the potential of algae as a renewable resource in Europe.

2.2.

The Commission’s communication is logical and forms part of a series of documents which have recognised the significant economic potential and environmental and social benefits of large-scale microalgae and macroalgae cultivation in the EU. It identifies 23 actions aimed at improving the governance framework and legislation, improving the business environment in relation to algae, increasing public awareness and consumer acceptance of algae and algae-based products, and closing knowledge, research and technological gaps.

2.3.

European policies — the European Green Deal (2), the Farm to Fork Strategy (3) — have stressed the potential of farmed (marine) algae and other algal-based products as a low-carbon source of proteins used in food and feed. The communication Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030 (4) highlights the need to promote the cultivation of algae — both macroalgae (marine algae) and microalgae — in order to help achieve several of the European Green Deal objectives. In its communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles (5), the European Commission recognises the potential of algae for the blue carbon economy. The communication on a sustainable blue economy (6) also refers to the potential of algae to ensure a sustainable food system and global food security.

2.4.

The use of algae not only as an environmentally friendly (green) feedstock, but also in farming systems is in line with the blue economy’s waste minimisation principle, i.e. it can be both a blue and green product.

2.5.

Algae cultivation brings added value to almost all elements of the European Green Deal:

—	climate protection through decarbonisation,

—	the production of biogas and biofuels for energy supply,

—	achieving circularity through waste management and zero pollution,

—	promoting a healthy and environmentally friendly food system,

—	protecting and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity, developing environmental services,

—	zero pollution.

Stepping up algae production offers the following specific possibilities (7):

—	production of food (including infant formula) or food supplements (e.g. vitamins, carrageenan) in a sustainable manner, without the use of land;

—	production of state-of-the-art biogas and biofuels;

—	production of high added-value cosmetics, healthcare products (pharmaceutical extracts, pigments, thalassotherapy) and industrial raw materials (paper/bio-based fibres);

—	production of feed supplements (yield and/or quality improvement, soya/fish meal savings);

—	production of crop biostimulants (soil improver, foliar fertiliser);

—	environmental benefits (waste water treatment, water quality measurement, carbon quotas).

2.6.

The Commission’s communication ‘looks at the potential of algae in the EU and sets out a coherent approach, including targeted actions, to support the upscaling of regenerative algae cultivation and production throughout the EU, and to develop and mainstream the markets for food and non-food algae applications’.

2.7.

Not only does ‘regenerative algae cultivation and production’ mean the conversion of solar energy and nutrients into plant biomass and support for the restoration of ecosystems, but also ‘seaweed cultivation can deliver valuable ecosystem goods and services, including providing new habitats for fish and mobile invertebrate species’.

2.8.

Despite the fact that the seas and oceans are a huge but underused resource, they are currently ‘the source of only up to 2 % of human food, despite covering over 70 % of the Earth’s surface’. However, benefits from the use of aquatic resources are not limited to the seas and oceans, but also include eutrophicated freshwaters (be these rivers and lakes or man-made reservoirs, irrigation channels, etc.), waste water from thermal baths and other waste water.

2.9.

Problems with the availability of fertilisers, feed components and energy resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war could be reduced effectively and sustainably with the use of algae (8).

2.10.

The demand for algae has a huge potential for growth (9): while European demand for seaweed was around 270 000 tonnes in 2019, it could increase to 8 million tonnes by 2030 and be worth EUR 9 billion. This increase could create around 85 000 jobs, lead to the removal of thousands of tonnes of phosphorus and nitrogen from European seas each year, reduce CO2 emissions by up to 5,4 million tonnes per year, and reduce pressures on land use. The EESC notes that the theoretical potential of algae cultivation is greater than the current demand and is therefore capable of keeping up with growing demand.

3. Specific comments

3.1.

The perception of algae by the average European and among businesses is mostly negative and based on images such as seaweed on the beach or algal blooms discolouring a freshwater lake. However, the physical structure and way of life of algae make them unique living organisms.

3.2.

In fact, the term ‘algae’ describes a group of approximately 72 500 species (10) of aquatic photosynthetic organisms. 20 % of species are large, multicellular macroalgae, typically found in seas, while the rest are microalgae which can be grown efficiently in artificial systems, have a more versatile use but are more expensive to produce. The initiative has a reasonable balance between macroalgae and microalgae, as 36 million tonnes of macroalgae and 0,05 million tons of microalgae are currently produced worldwide.

3.3.

The communication opens up ambitious but realistic perspectives for the European algae sector. The analysis of the algae sector and its possibilities and limitations is largely accurate, the programme is coherent and the measures generally appear to be specific and relevant for the development of the European algae sector in the near future. However, certain elements require some clarification and explanation. There should be consistency in implementation with other sectors, such as the traditional agricultural food sector and seafood sectors (fishing and animal aquaculture).

3.4.

At present, algae production is very distinct from other agricultural production sectors. However, it is important not to consider algae as a completely separate production sector, but as integrated in the existing value chains for agricultural food and feed, as well as for industrial and energy raw materials. The EESC stresses the need to regulate algae production and other related activities in a common system, in particular:

—	the power plant and waste water treatment sectors (complex waste water treatment, waste heat and CO2 recovery),

—	integration of agricultural biogas plants with algae production/use (e.g. slurry utilisation, reduction of agricultural land demand, use of algae as co-substrate in biogas recipes),

—	partial replacement of protein feed demand for livestock farming (related dietary and dietetic research),

—	sustainable restoration of eutrophicated water ecosystems.

3.5.

As this is an underdeveloped new sector, special attention should be paid to stimulating development, and a standardisation process should be launched. This could include the development of an integrated strategy on seafood and other marine-based food that includes activities such as fisheries, wild organism harvesting and animal aquaculture, and beyond the food sector also biofuels with an algae component. Seaweed farming can also be an alternative for fishermen who face reductions of other raw materials along with increasing costs, and may have to change their traditional activities. Such an integrated approach is little evident in the communication.

3.6.

A number of measures provided for focus mainly on offshore farming. This is understandable given the current macro- and microalgae production rates and the current underdeveloped status of microalgae production in Europe, but the development goal should cover the full variety of algaes. Seaweeds can be grown in countries with coastlines and islands, typically under natural conditions, depending on species and use. On the other hand, the inland cultivation of microalgae is generally also very important, especially for protein and lipid production, and should not be forgotten. This includes freshwater (micro and macro) algae and cultivation applications in waste water, which are a promising source of biomass for use as organic feedstock and to diversifying the economic structure of isolated and depopulated areas, contributing to the long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas (11).

3.7.

One of the main known obstacles in the production sector — especially for macroalgae, both at sea and inland — is the fragmentation of legislation on algae and its wide variation between Member States and even between regions within Member States, or its complete absence, as authorisation models are generally designed with aquatic animals (fish, shellfish, etc.) in mind. Algae is very often not included in the forms used for authorisation procedures, so no authorisation for algae can even be requested. The EESC recommends that a complete pan-European overview be drawn up of all legislation and administrative procedures for each stage of algae cultivation and each field of application (food, animal feed, biofuels, cosmetics, pharmaceutical products etc.) and that it be used as an example for Member States to develop best administrative practices and to create a level playing field for trade within and beyond the EU.

3.8.

Encouraging the inclusion of algae species or groups in the EU food catalogue is essential for the development of a truly European algae food sector. Many of the species currently recognised are from outside Europe (particularly from Asia), and this creates obstacles in particular for smaller companies and investors who want to cultivate closely related or similar European species. To this end, the algae parts of the food catalogue should be reviewed and the inclusion of new species/genera encouraged.

3.9.

As there is a high level of social aversion to algae, albeit unfounded and due to a lack of knowledge, knowledge and awareness of the new industry, and also its integration and systemic application, should be created at all administrative levels, and this should be reflected in the proposed measures. Possible steps include:

—	representative surveys at national level among the general public and businesses with uniform questions and methodology,

—	on this basis, developing country-specific action plans to improve behaviours,

—	establishment of industry organisations.

3.10.

As the algae sector is a new sector for Europe, there are significant gaps in professional knowledge, technology and innovation. Knowledge gaps have largely been identified but need to be addressed through an ambitious programme to fund short- and medium-term research. To cover these gaps, both basic (strategic) and applied research is essential at all levels of algae production:

—	priority support for basic research: in the case of microalgae, mainly related to cultivation technology; in the case of macroalgae, mainly related to efficient harvesting and species composition studies of marine waters in different countries; and for all algae species, related to utilisation,

—	improving the market environment for applied developments with high added value (pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, foliar fertiliser, food).

3.11.

Since reliable quality (species composition) and high algae yields in Europe can only be achieved in closed or semi-closed systems, and these require clean propagating material whose production is not profitable in industrial systems, it is necessary to establish a sufficient number of propagating material banks for algae, finance their operation and ensure that raw materials are available at a reasonable price for algae producers and R & D projects.

3.12.

The algae sector has significant potential to create jobs which should be well paid and with decent working conditions. The algae sector should particularly benefit in terms of building the competences necessary to create the EU Blue Deal; investments in training are important. Barriers to entry into the algae sector should not prevent SMEs entering this business segment. The EESC welcomes the creation of seaweed product chains that avoid unfair practices.

3.13.

Effective growth in the algae sector can only be achieved by improving the business environment. We need to look carefully at the economic aspects of production and potential applications and how they can be improved. For example, measure No 7 refers to encouraging the replacement of fish-based feed with algae-based feed (in aquaculture). In fish feed, almost all fish-based ingredients can easily be replaced with algae-based ingredients (proteins, fatty acids, etc.), but it is much more expensive to produce them than fish- or soy-based products with similar characteristics. For fish producers, to whom feed is one of the main costs of production and profit margins are generally tight, algae-based feed is simply not feasible economically. Measures should therefore be planned to reduce the production costs of algae-based ingredients while avoiding having stricter monitoring and standardisation for algae than for other agricultural products. All producers of food (and food ingredients) should be treated equally in order to ensure a level playing field on the market. If algae-based ingredients are proven to be more sustainable, it may be possible to link their use to eco-certification (eco-labelling), which may encourage consumers to accept a higher price for a more sustainable product.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Towards a Strong and Sustainable EU Algae Sector, COM(2022) 592 final, 15 November 2022.

(2) The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final, 11 December 2019.

(3) A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system, COM(2020) 381 final, 20 May 2020.

(4) Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030, COM(2021) 236 final, 12 May 2021.

(5) Sustainable Carbon Cycles, COM(2021) 800 final, 15 December 2021.

(6) Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future, COM(2021) 240 final, 17 May 2021.

(7) Reference and other possibilities: Babich et al., Algae: Study of Edible and Biologically Active Fractions, Their Properties and Applications, Plants 2022, 11(6), 780; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11060780, and Poonam Sharma, Nivedita Sharma (2017), Industrial and Biotechnological Applications of Algae: A Review, Journal of Advances in Plant Biology — 1(1):01-25. DOI 10.14302/issn.2638-4469.japb-17-1534, https://openaccesspub.org/article/530/japb-17-1534.pdf

(8) European Council meeting Conclusions 23 and 24 June 2022.

(9) Estimates of the Seaweed for Europe Coalition study Hidden Champion of the Ocean: Seaweed as a Growth Engine for a Sustainable European Future.

(10) Michael D. Guiry puts the number of algae species at up to 1 million in his study How many species of algae are there? However, the online taxonomy database AlgaeBase puts the figure at 72 500. See Guiry (2012), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27011267/, DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2012.01222.x.

(11) COM(2021) 345 A long-term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas — Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 and OJ C 290, 29.7.2022, p. 137.

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/132

(COM(2022) 682 final)

(2023/C 228/19)

Rapporteur:	András EDELÉNYI
Co-rapporteur:	Alessandro MOSTACCIO

Referral	European Commission, 8.2.2023
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	13.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	134/0/4

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC):

1.1.

welcomes the timely communication on the EU policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics: this is a sector which is opening up options for coming closer to the goals of sustainability and circularity. If properly regulated, bioplastics can be an instrument for ‘green’ development (decrease in fossil consumption and in plastic pollution, increase in separate waste collection).

1.2.

highlights the fact that, fortunately, Europe is a pioneer in the field of bioplastics and biodegradable plastics development and, from 2007 to 2020, financed more than 130 research projects to the tune of EUR 1 bn (1). The EU is the world’s second largest producer of bioplastics and should increase its global position by focusing on products with the highest added value, i.e. products that are biobased, biodegradable and compostable (Asian production is mainly limited to compostable but non-renewable products).

1.3.

believes that we will be able to raise the bar in global competition by achieving maximum environmental benefits if the new regulatory framework is able to select the industrial applications with the highest environmental added value and if all new products that are placed on the market communicate clearly and truthfully, empowering consumers to be proactive in the shift towards the circular economy.

1.4.

encourages the Commission to draw conclusions on the basis of comparative analysis of the benefits of biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics versus fossil-based plastics. Some overly cautious non-comparative recommendations may fail to provide research, innovation and starting investment activities with sufficient guidance. This may hinder progress and blunt the EU’s competitive edge.

1.5.

recommends that a systematic review be conducted of all measures which directly and indirectly affect the surrounding legislative and normative environment in line with the most recent scientific findings. This could mitigate confusion and safeguard users.

1.6.

calls for the cascading hierarchical priority system to be applied to the evaluation of materials, products and processes, including circularity and sustainability aspects. This is relevant for the raw materials, biomass and food chains, as well as for recycling cascades. The implementation of RED III will further establish the sequence whereby the reuse/recycling of the material (renewable material) is prioritised over reuse for energy purposes (renewable energy).

1.7.

is persuaded that the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is an excellent tool for assessing certain sustainability aspects of products, and so helps guide planned or ongoing research, innovation and investment activities. However, considerable further effort is needed to reduce the shortcomings inherent in the methods currently used, with a view to reducing the uncertainties involved in neglecting the biogenic carbon bonus (2) and the impact on the natural capital.

1.8.

is of the opinion that most current cost accounting and pricing methods fail to internalise and recognise the impact of additional components that are recycled back into the production loop in terms of the resulting expenditure and gains. A realistic Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme based on the LCA and tailored to the specific needs can redirect and correct the detrimental price competitiveness of biopolymer products.

1.9.

suggests that a selected set of intervention areas that should come within the remit of ‘Value-Added Europe’ (3) can help identify and release the bottlenecks holding back the fast progress needed. This is particularly relevant for data, monitoring and discussion and for supporting research and innovation.

1.10.

recommends that the Commission continue the cyclical reviews of important developments in the biopolymer ecosystem. The built-in public consultation methods and tools are a good way to involve all stakeholders, primarily by ensuring that organised civil society is involved through the various representative associations.

1.11.

encourages Member States to introduce mandatory biobased plastic content percentages for both biobased plastic and compostable plastics. It is proposed that all display material (promotion, branding, etc.) should be based on definitive standards and norms. For the certified biogenic carbon content, this is the radiocarbon C-14 method. The mass-balance method can be acceptable for expressing the biomass content of more complex, multiple or intermediary level recycling but consumers have to be notified about it.

1.12.

notes the banning regulation on single-use plastics but proposes a precision of the definitions of its scope and wording as it believes that the regulation should not exclude a number of plastic products and applications that are inherently single-use, not returnable, i.e. that cannot be re-used or mechanically recycled. In those cases, the use of BBP and/or BDCP is to be favoured.

1.13.

highlights the fact that mechanical (short-loop) recycling is often beneficial due to its relative simplicity, but it does have shortcomings: these include down-cycling by mix, thickness limits, return yields and energy needs. A complex sustainability comparison may find that it is better to use biobased polymers or different recycling pathways (i.e. organic and/or chemical). The most suitable option in that case may be the use of plastics which are both biobased and compostable. Separation techniques for thin foils still have to be developed.

1.14.

is of the opinion that biodegradable plastics certified in compliance with EU standards offer opportunities to mitigate plastics pollution by reducing the accumulation of micro- and nanoplastic waste and thus the harm that non-biodegradables do. For the time being, only a few — although very important — applications are available for controlled biodegradation in specific open, natural environments. More effort is needed to develop systemic methods that combine material properties and conditions in order to take advantage of the options for biodegradation in soil and other specific open environments.

1.15.

is convinced that industrial composting and use of compostable plastic is an excellent way to enhance the collection and utilisation of food waste. In addition to returning carbon to the soil, these techniques make it possible to dispose of and recycle food waste and packaging (or other compostable applications) together. Member States should be encouraged and assisted to implement the mandatory separated organic waste collection from 2024. Compostable plastics such as bags and other food-related applications, as well as infrastructure, organisation and awareness campaigns should be made ready for this step.

1.16.

calls for the range of applications of compostable plastics to not be limited to those listed in the Commission’s proposal on packaging and packaging waste. Experience and good practice show that compostable plastics can play a beneficial role in a number of areas, primarily related to food contact, closed loops and thin foils.

2. Background to the opinion, glossary and state of play in the sector

2.1. Renewable plastics definitions:

—	‘Bioplastics’ is a generic collective term that should not be used either when marketing plastics or for applications because it can be misused and/or misleading or generate negative associations. Here it means ‘biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics’.

—	Biobased plastics (plant-based plastics, BBP): plastics made from renewable, non-fossil raw materials (4). BBPs can be biodegradable or not. Drop-in BBPs are chemically identical to their fossil-based analogues. ‘Bio-attributed’ plastics can be defined as plastics with allocated biobased content.

—

Biodegradable plastics (BDP): plastics that, at the end of their functional life, are subject to decomposition by micro-organisms, thereby producing water, biomass, mineral salts and carbon dioxide (CO2) (or methane in the event of anaerobic digestion). They can be made of both biobased or fossil feedstock.

—

Compostable plastics (CP): a subset of biodegradable plastics (for which the joint acronym is BDCP) in which the biodegradation process takes place under controlled conditions using micro-organisms to produce stabilised organic residues, water and CO2 in the presence of oxygen or methane in the absence of oxygen, both end-gases are collectable. Standardised, strictly controlled composting takes place in composting plants (organic recycling plants) according to the requirements of EN 13432 (5) that assure the use of bio-friendly additives, too. Home composting is not subject to such strict conditions, and so it cannot deliver a pre-defined end product.

—	The most advantageous combination is, naturally, if a plastic is both biobased and biodegradable, including compostable which is the case for widely used polylactic acid (PLA).

2.2. The plastics sector

Plastics/bioplastics production — world

2021-2022 data — Global production of plastics and bioplastics (6)

Year	Fossil plastics [Mt]	Bioplastics [Mt]	BP [%]	BBP [Mt; (%)]	BDCP [Mt; (%)]
2021	367	1,80	0,49	0,74 ; (41,2 )	1,05 ; (58,7 )
2022 (*1)	390	2,22	0,57	1,07 ; (48,2 )	1,14 ; (51,3 )
Based on: European Bioplastics, Facts and Figures: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/

Bioplastics currently account for ca. 1 % of the world’s total plastics production.

By 2027 however, bioplastics are expected to increase from 1,8 to 6,2 million tons.

2.2.1. Bioplastics in the world

Asia (particularly China) is the main production hub for bioplastics (41,4 % in 2022), followed by the EU (26,5 %) and the USA (18,9 %).

By 2027, Asia’s share is set to increase to 63 %, while without support measures the EU’s share is set to decrease significantly.

2.2.2. European demand for bioplastics

In the EU, the demand for bioplastics increased from 210 000 tonnes in 2019 to about 320 000 tonnes in 2021 (7). The annual growth rate was over 23 %. Compared to the world production of bioplastics, European demand is about 18 %. Europe plays a leading role in terms of foreign trade balance and technical innovation.

Increasing consumers’ awareness on distinction from fossil-based plastics and optimal use of bioplastics is of key importance.

2.3. Environmental challenges for plastics

2.3.1. Impact on the climate

The plastics value chain contributes to a limited extent to greenhouse gases (GHGs) compared to other value chains like energy, chemicals and some other materials. The total GHG emissions caused by the plastics value chain in the EU in 2018 is estimated at 208 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq). The majority (63 %) is caused when plastic polymers are produced. Converting these polymers into products accounts for 22 %, and plastic waste treatment at end-of-life adds another 15 %, mainly due to incineration (8).

2.3.2. Impact on natural capital

In addition to the impact on the climate, the recycling rate of plastics is still too low. This also affects the environment and the world’s natural capital (the footprint) by using up the finite stock of natural resources and harming the world’s ecosystems, such as soil, land, air, water, living organisms, and ultimately human health and well-being. A specific issue is the accumulation of microplastic particles in fresh and sea water.

2.3.3. Efforts to mitigate the problem

The bioplastics value chain has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions due to biogenic or sequestered CO2 if usage increases significantly and if BBP waste is recycled rather than incinerated. Making plastics from biomass and/or ensuring that plastic products can biodegrade in certain environments has a number of benefits compared to conventional plastics, but these must be recognised and taken into account. A scenario calculation (Eionet Report — ETC/WMGE 2021/3) substituting all fossil-based plastics with biobased ones in the EU resulted in total annual GHG emissions of 146 million tonnes of CO2-eq for biobased plastics, 30 % less than the 208 million tonnes of CO2-eq emissions from the fossil-based value-chain (9).

3. General comments

3.1.

The common features of bioplastics are that they have great potential to improve and preserve a sustainable, balanced carbon cycle. Accordingly, they contribute to a net-zero impact on the climate and the natural capital. The two main groups, however, should be treated separately. Biobased plastics (BBP), sourced from plants, are enablers for a switch from a fossil-based to a biomass-based plastics economy. Biodegradable and compostable plastics (BDCP) meanwhile have unique benefits for the end-of-life management of products and for achieving the Green Deal objectives (e.g. reducing food waste, sustainable production and consumption).

It is reasonable to use plastics which are both biobased and compostable in order to reduce the net GHG balance by the amount of CO2 sequestered from the environment.

3.2.

The European Commission’s communication provides a deep and extensive analysis of the biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics sector, reviewing the available data. The conclusions and recommendations are overly cautious on certain points, and run the risk of discouraging innovation and investment in certain key areas. The analysis should be comparative, comparing biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics to the current fossil-based version, although in any case the substitution 1:1 of plastics with bioplastics is not a viable scenario.

3.3.

The general societal perception and acceptance of sustainable materials and products and their use is quite high, typically between 80-90 % in opinion polls. 25 % of responding consumers would be ready to pay a price premium of 20 % above that of equivalent products made of fossil-based plastics and 4 % would pay 50 % more for sustainable biopolymer goods.

3.4.

The design and implementation of a realistic strategic framework needs:

—	clear, unambiguous definitions and classifications of biopolymer types, their characteristics and optimum application areas;

—	to ensure that people know that ‘biobased’ refers only to the origin of the raw material base, while ‘biodegradable’ and ‘recyclable’ is a systemic property that depends on the material and the environment/conditions of functional end-of-life;

—	a systematic review and alignment of the legislative environment governing design, manufacturing, use and recirculation, i.e. full-life of plastic goods;

—	to realign the surrounding set of standards and connected labelling, taking into account the recent findings of research, technical developments and innovations;

—	to provide consumers with scientifically proven knowledge and build effective infrastructure to enable them to become part of the process of achieving commonly agreed sustainability goals, and to continue to study the health and environmental impacts of bioplastics.

3.5.

A cascading hierarchical priority system must prevail throughout the entire framework, including the reduction of plastics at and before the source. This must cover the value chain and abide by the principles of preserve, re-use, recycle and recover in order to keep components in the loop As far as possible, the entire carbon stock, flow and cycle must be controlled: this includes the concentrated carbon in raw material (coal, oil, gas); carbon which has been manufactured, processed, captured (as CO2), collected (as waste) and recycled; and dispersed carbon found in used products, the soil and the air. Recycling options include sustainability-optimised short-loop (mechanical), mid-loop (physical/chemical and/or chemical) and full-loop (biochemical) pathways, depending on how the various substances can be returned to the loop.

3.6.

The above requirements pose a new and broad spectrum of challenges for eco-design engineering. In addition to the traditional tasks of functionality, feasibility and aesthetics, eco-design engineers must now factor in raw material sourcing, durability, end-of-life forecast, circularity and optimised sustainability.

3.7.

Sustainable feedstock sourcing deserves particular attention: the 1 % share of BBP within the plastics market occupies 0,02 % of arable land. A theoretical, but not realistic, 100 % replacement of fossil-based plastics by BBP would need 4-5 % of arable land. Crops (sugar, starch, oils) currently make up two thirds of feedstock sources and non-edibles (wood, castor oil) make up the remaining third. Despite low land usage, the goal will be to move down the food and biomass cascades, i.e. shift sourcing from crops/food to by-products (e.g. straw, waste wood) and recyclable waste (organic lignocellulose, carbohydrogen and carbohydrate waste) prior to energy recovery. The same is true for new feedstock initiatives such as algae waste.

3.8.

Manufacturing technologies are mostly established and the technologies for fossil-based plastics can be applied to transformation. For the circular chain, however, further steps must be added to both ends of the linear process: feedstock production and biorefinery as well as waste collection and treatment followed by recycling or recovery. These account for more dispersed material flows. Where needed and feasible, use should be made of centralised processes for CO2 capture.

3.9.

Material research and engineering should focus on widening the spectrum of applications of new biopolymers or blends with novel combinations of physical, chemical, functional and degradability properties, with regard to both the material properties and the conditions.

3.10.

Labour aspects have not yet been analysed in depth. Estimations forecast an additional 175 000 to 215 000jobs by 2030 (footnote 16). New technologies need new skills, especially when it comes to feedstock processing, recycling and eco-design engineering. These demands will have to be addressed by development and investment plans, along with training, education, reskilling and upskilling programmes. Job satisfaction and prestige is increasing but equal attention must be paid to designing decent work conditions.

3.11.

Most of today’s mainstream accounting and pricing models use the traditional or linear ‘cradle-to-gate’ approach. In this comparison, biopolymers are at a disadvantage due to the high material costs, more fragmented access to feedstock, smaller serial productions and learning curve. In a ‘cradle-to-cradle’ paradigm which internalises the costs of sustainable recirculation, this could change completely. Properly applied modular Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) methods could offset the gap.

3.12.

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methods and calculations are used to evaluate the environmental footprint of used goods and materials. Considerable efforts have been made to define and quantify this impact, expressed as net GHG-emissions in CO2-equivalent. Further experience, research and modelling will be needed to develop the current Product Environment Footprint (PEF) methods as they fall short when it comes to establishing the biogenic carbon bonus and quantifying land use change impacts and the hard-to-guess natural capital impacts. A realistic and accepted LCA is a prerequisite for a credible and modular EPR system. LCA-based screening and forecasts would reduce risks by steering early research and innovation and investment decisions.

3.13.

Member States’ practices and legislation vary to a considerable degree. ‘Value-Added Europe’ (10) should therefore focus on supporting areas such as data collection and transparency, identifying and disseminating good practices, monitoring scientific, economic, financial and social progress, also identifying bottlenecks and helping remove or resolve them in order to keep the EU fairly competitive in this sector.

4. Specific comments

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1.

In a number of cases, mechanical recycling is not feasible, due to the packaging being contaminated by food or because it is not possible and/or convenient to mechanically recycle small and/or thin packaging. In these cases, compostable plastics are a good solution as they allow for the co-disposal and joint recycling of food waste and packaging.

4.2. Biobased plastics

4.2.1.

The policy framework should stipulate a mandatory minimum biobased and recycled content for BBP, starting with the European Commission proposal on packaging and packaging waste (30.11.2022). This BBP content could replace or complement the minimum recycled content. Food safety requires the use of virgin or chemically recycled material in food contact applications (cutlery, cups, trays, wrapping films); only PET bottles and trays are allowed to be mechanically recycled and reprocessed into plastics for direct food contact.

4.2.2.

There are already certification schemes for biobased content, such as the TUV Austria OK biobased scheme (11) and the DIN CERTCO biobased scheme (12). There are also specific European and international standards (13), including third-party-certified mass balance-based approaches. Moreover, some Member States have set mandatory levels for both recycled and biobased content. For certification, biogenic carbon content should be defined using the C-14 radiochemical methodology. However, for multiple times recycled, non-homogeneous products and BBP containing plastics, the mass-content method could also be acceptable.

4.2.3.

Certain chain-of-custody methods enable biobased feedstocks to be used in intermediates or products where the complexity of the value chains or the level of scale does not yet allow for segregation (14).

4.2.4.

The policy framework refers to the Joint Research Centre’s ‘Plastics LCA method’ (15) which builds on the EU Product Environmental Footprint method (PEF) as the most harmonised method available. However, the PEF methodology falls short when it comes to properly accounting for biogenic carbon (even contradicting some commonly accepted standards (16) taking into account the upfront uptake of biogenic carbon in biobased products and plastics) and land-use change.

4.3. Biodegradable and compostable plastics

The properties of biodegradability and compostability are not negative aspects leading to increased littering. There are no evidence, studies or demonstrations to prove the assumption that biodegradability may negatively influence littering. This issue can be addressed with a labelling system as has already been introduced in Italy. No material should be littered: all materials have to be collected, sorted and recycled.

4.3.1. Biodegradable plastics

The biodegradability of plastics in the open environment is not a waste management tool. On the contrary, and in line with the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (17) and standard EN 13432, compostable plastics must be organically recycled with food waste or with livestock manure and slurry in composting plants in order to produce organic compost that can be used as organic fertilizer for treatment and improvement of soil. The aim is to use these materials where there are proven sustainability benefits, as is the case with food-related applications. Such use of compostable plastics may contribute both to raising the levels of organic waste collection and to reducing the contamination of organic waste caused by traditional plastic materials.

4.3.1.1.

Further intensive research should be carried out into systemic-optimised materials and conditions for controlled biodegradation in specific open, natural environments. Good examples are water-degradable plasters or soil-degradable polymer coatings of slow- or controlled-release fertilisers. However, more efforts are needed to develop degradation as this can go far in preventing and mitigating micro- and nano-plastic pollution by accumulation.

4.3.1.2.

As recognised by the European Commission’s communication, biodegradable plastics play an important role in agriculture. In this sector, biodegradable plastics are a beneficial alternative as they biodegrade in the soil without generating microplastics. They also avoid the soil erosion that would otherwise occur when using very thin (< 25 μm) traditional plastic mulch films.

4.3.2. Industrially compostable plastics

4.3.2.1.

The EESC emphasises the key role of compostable plastics in most specific food contact packaging and non-packaging formats, in line with but not limited to the few formats mentioned by the Commission (fruit and vegetable stickers, tea bags and filter coffee pods, as well as very light plastic carrier bags). Therefore, other important compostable packaging and non-packaging formats such as cutlery, cups, trays and wrapping films (also in closed loop events, uses and areas) should be promoted and not banned by Article 22 in combination with Annex V of the proposal on packaging and packaging waste. This is not in line with the fact that, as of 31 December 2023, biowaste must be separately collected or recycled at source in all EU countries (18); compostable plastics play a pivotal role in achieving a higher rate of biowaste capture and less contamination of compost by non-biodegradable plastics.

As some compostable and biobased plastics are already on the market, the most suitable option seems to be to require a minimum biobased content for compostable plastics, in line with some national legislation (as in Italy and France).

4.3.2.2.

The review of the Fertiliser Directive showed a clear imbalance in European fertilising patterns: average overuse of synthetic nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium nutrients may lead to the eutrophication of waters, whilst a lack of organic fertilisers, like manure, compost from waste, sludge, etc. may lead to a drop in soil carbon content.

4.3.2.3.

The European Commission’s communication sees the cross-contamination issue as an argument for limiting the use of compostable plastics. However, cross-contamination involves not only compostable plastics, but also other materials (such as the presence of metals in plastic streams and of non-compostable plastics in biowaste). There is also cross-contamination in plastic streams, because the different polymers should be separated before entering most of the recycling processes to avoid down-cycling. In practice, the cross-contamination of plastic streams by bioplastics is unproven: Italian data show that the presence of compostable plastics in plastic streams is below 1 %. This is due to the fact that some products can only be made of compostable plastics (single-use plastic bags, cutlery, plates) and to there being a clear labelling system for both compostable and traditional plastics, which enables consumers to distinguish between them and throw them into the appropriate recycling system (biowaste for compostable plastics vs. plastic for non-compostable ones). Therefore, there is no cross-contamination and no consumer confusion in countries that have established appropriate waste management systems for compostable plastics (19). Those countries and their legislative frameworks, waste management systems and labelling systems could be a good practice for bioplastics.

The EN 13432 standard can be updated but the European Commission’s communication fails to recognise that composting plants which follow the best available practices and technologies for processes, particularly the right composting times, are able to fully treat and biodegrade compostable plastics and food waste, as shown in the interviews conducted by Biorepack in composting plants (20). Neither bioplastics nor the EN 13432 standard are responsible if some composting plants, especially in EU Member States with less efficient food waste management systems, do not follow the right composting processes and timing. Those composting plants simply need to be upgraded.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking.

(2) Biogenic carbon absorption (sequestration) from the environment should be deducted from the carbon emissions in environmental footprint calculations, i.e. ‘credited’ to the climate impact.

(3) The areas where the EU, together, can create added value, versus the individual Member States acting separately without coordination and common resources.

(4) The family of biobased plastics may also include ‘bio-attributed’ plastics, which can be defined as plastics with allocated biobased content (biobased content can be determined by means of feedstock allocation).

(5) OJ L 190, 12.7.2001, p. 21.

(*1) Preliminary balance.

(6) Source: World plastics production 2020, Plastics Europe, 2021. European Bioplastics, Facts and Figures (https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/).

(7) Plastic Consult, Bioplastics in Europe, Market update, 23.9.2022.

(8) Eionet Report — ETC/WMGE 2021/3.

(9) Eionet Report — ETC/WMGE 2021/3.

(10) This is the inverse of the concept of Costs-of-non-Europe and refers to the benefits of acting in synergy rather than individually.

(11) https://www.tuv-at.be/green-marks

(12) https://www.dincertco.de

(13) CEN/TS 16640; ASTM D6866.

(14) In complex and long industrial processes using multiple feedstocks, a physical segregation (between fossil and bio or between ‘fresh’ and recycled) would require unsustainable investments. Chain-of-custody methods allow for a reliable and transparent accounting and a clear and unequivocal labelling and claiming with respect to the content of a product along the value chain.

(15) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125046

(16) ISO 22526-1, 2 and 3, EN 16760, ISO, EN 15804, ISO 14067.

(17) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).

(18) Article 22 of Directive 2008/98/EC.

(19) See Biorepack EPR schemes for compostable plastics in Italy, https://eng.biorepack.org/

(20) https://eng.biorepack.org/communication/news/composting-plants-talk.kl

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/141

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific rules relating to medicinal products for human use intended to be placed on the market of Northern Ireland

(COM(2023) 122 final – 2023/0064 (COD))

(2023/C 228/20)

Rapporteur-General:

Jack O'CONNOR

Referral	Council, 9.3.2023 European Parliament, 13.3.2023
Legal basis	Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Section for External Relations
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	154/0/0

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) agrees that a Regulation is the appropriate instrument to give effect to the jointly agreed solutions and welcomes the timeliness with which the Commission has come forward with the proposed Regulation.

1.2

The EESC agrees that:

—	the provisions of the proposed Regulation are appropriately limited to the relevant policy area and that no assessment of consistency with other Union policies is necessary;

—	the proposal uses as a legal basis the provisions of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

—	the measures envisaged are proportionate to the objectives to be met;

—	the proposal also contains adequate safeguard mechanisms to ensure the protection of the EU single market;

—	the proposed Regulation is exempt from impact assessment, given the urgency and sensitivity of the situation.

1.3

The EESC supports the adoption and early implementation of the proposed Regulation, which would ensure continuity of supply of medicinal products for human use in Northern Ireland and enhance the prospects for implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, as well as contribute to the protection of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

1.4

Articles 9 and 10 of the proposed Regulation enable suspension of the specific rules by the Commission in the event of the UK's non-compliance. The EESC agrees that such a provision is essential. However, the EESC emphasises the importance of the consultation with the UK envisaged in Article 9(3), as well as with the experts designated by each Member State in Article 10(4), prior to any such suspension.

1.5

The EESC encourages ongoing consultation with key stakeholders to help ensure timely implementation, as well as monitoring for any future risks to the delivery of the objectives of the proposed Regulation. In this regard, the European institutions should also be updated periodically on the progress of implementation ahead of January 2025.

2. General comments

2.1

The proposed Regulation arises in the context of the solutions agreed between the EU and the UK in the Windsor Framework.

2.2

The proposed Regulation arises in the context of a comprehensive set of joint solutions agreed between the EU and the UK to address the concerns listed in the proposed Regulation's Explanatory Memorandum. It concerns the adoption of specific rules relating to medicinal products for human use intended to be placed on the market in Northern Ireland in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). These are intended to provide for specific rules to the provisions listed in Annex 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Protocol), which regulate activity in the medicinal products sector.

2.3

The difficulties that the proposed Regulation aims to address arose practically at the entry into force of the Protocol on 1 January 2021. They continued even after the expiry of the transition period set out in the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, particularly around the availability of GB-manufactured medicinal products in Northern Ireland, due to the complex new regulatory environment. To ensure the uninterrupted supply of medicines from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, the EU adopted Directive (EU) 2022/642 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) on 12 April 2022, providing derogations from certain obligations concerning certain medicinal products for human use made available in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland.

2.4

Essentially, these allowed UK manufacturers to maintain batch testing and regulatory functions in parts of the UK other than Northern Ireland. They also facilitated the supply of novel medicines by allowing the competent UK authorities to authorise for a limited period of time such a supply to patients in Northern Ireland, even though they would not yet have approval in the EU.

2.5

Subsequent experience revealed certain practical problems with these solutions. The requirement to provide separate packs and information leaflets for Great Britain and Northern Ireland would impose a significant economic burden on manufacturers in the context of the small size of the Northern Ireland market. Concerns were also raised that the coexistence of potentially divergent marketing authorisations for Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the same medicine would create legal uncertainty relating to the applicable rules for medicines. Other issues concerned the complexity of regulations applying to the export and reimportation of medicines, which the Commission addressed in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/315 (3), providing for a three-year derogation for wholesalers.

2.6

The subsequent joint solutions agreed between the EU and UK are designed to provide a sustainable solution to these issues. They provide that:

—	new and innovative medicines lawfully placed on the market in Northern Ireland are only to be covered by a valid marketing authorisation issued by the UK;

—	EU safety features will not appear on packs of medicines in Northern Ireland;

—	medicines placed on the market in Northern Ireland will not be made available in any EU Member State;

—	UK packs will carry a ‘UK Only’ label;

—	UK authorities will continuously monitor activity in the market to ensure compliance;

—	the Commission can unilaterally suspend the new rules in the event of UK non-compliance with its obligations.

2.7

The proposal is designed to give legislative effect to this set of joint solutions.

2.8

The EESC agrees that a Regulation is the appropriate instrument to give effect to the jointly agreed solutions and welcomes the timeliness with which the Commission has come forward with the proposed Regulation.

2.9

The EESC agrees that:

—	the provisions of the proposed Regulation are appropriately limited to the relevant policy area and that no assessment of consistency with other Union policies is necessary;

—	the proposal uses as a legal basis the provisions of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

—	the measures envisaged are proportionate to the objectives to be met;

—	the proposal also contains adequate safeguard mechanisms to ensure the protection of the EU single market;

—	the proposed Regulation is exempt from impact assessment, given the urgency and sensitivity of the situation.

2.10

Given that extensive consultations with industry associations and other stakeholders preceded the discussions with the UK before the adoption of the first set of solutions in April 2022 and that this additional set of joint solutions responds to only a few additional issues that have arisen in the meantime, the EESC agrees that there is no requirement for an open public consultation prior to adoption. However, the EESC encourages ongoing consultation with key stakeholders to help ensure timely implementation, as well as monitoring for any possible future risks to the delivery of the objectives of the proposed Regulation. In this regard, the EU institutions should also be updated periodically on progress on implementation ahead of January 2025.

2.11

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67).

(2) Directive (EU) 2022/642 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 April 2022 amending Directives 2001/20/EC and 2001/83/EC as regards derogations from certain obligations concerning certain medicinal products for human use made available in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland and in Cyprus, Ireland and Malta (OJ L 118, 20.4.2022, p. 4).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/315 of 17 December 2021 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 as regards the derogation from the obligation of wholesalers to decommission the unique identifier of medicinal products exported to the United Kingdom (OJ L 55, 28.2.2022, p. 33).

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/144

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland

(COM(2023) 124 final – 2023/0062 (COD))

(2023/C 228/21)

Rapporteur-General:

Klaas Johan OSINGA

Referral	Council, 10.3.2023 European Parliament, 13.3.2023
Legal basis	Articles 43(2), 114, 168(4)(b) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Section for External Relations
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	147/0/0

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the Windsor Framework (1) as proof that when the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) come together in good faith to pursue mutually agreed solutions, the bilateral relationship can deliver tangible results for civil society in both parties.

1.2.

The EESC supports the proposed Regulation (2) from the Commission to regulate the entry and placing on the market of Northern Ireland (NI) of certain agricultural goods — including plants for planting, machinery and vehicles for agricultural or forestry purposes, and seed potatoes — as well as the non-commercial movements into NI from other parts of the UK (Great Britain, or GB) of pet dogs, cats and ferrets.

1.3.

The EESC recognises both the urgency and the technical nature of the proposed Regulation and of the matters it intends to regulate. It also acknowledges the significant effort made to reconcile facilitation of procedures, safeguards to the integrity of the EU internal market, and the protection of public, animal and plant health.

1.4.

The EESC observes that the deadline provided for the marking of prepacked retail goods entering NI from GB may pose challenges to some businesses in the UK, especially those with tighter financial and technical constraints — like small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

1.5.

The EESC raises similar concerns with regard to the development of a single data set for businesses in GB to meet the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and customs requirements when supplying customers in NI. It notes that any delay past the proposed deadline could cause longer identity checks than those provided for in the Regulation itself.

1.6.

The EESC urges the Commission to further clarify and provide solutions for the areas of more apparent divergence between SPS standards in the UK and the EU, with particular reference to the use of plant protection products (PPPs) in NI. It notes that persisting uncertainty would discriminate against NI farmers.

1.7.

There are still several questions as regards the movement of live animals and plant material from and to NI from both GB and the EU. The EESC calls on the Commission to resolve these as soon as possible as operators need clarity.

1.8.

The implications of the draft Border Target Operating Model that has been published by the UK to be introduced from October 2023, and which sets out a new model for imports into GB, including SPS controls, may add to the uncertainty which needs to be avoided at all costs. There is already uncertainty regarding the implementation of the Retained EU Law Bill.

2. General comments

2.1.

The proposed Regulation lays down specific rules relating to the entry into NI from GB of certain consignments of retail goods for placing on the market in NI, as well as certain consignments of plants for planting, machinery and vehicles which have been operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, and seed potatoes for placing on the market and use in NI.

2.2.

The Regulation also lays down specific rules relating to non-commercial movements into NI from other parts of the UK of pet dogs, cats and ferrets. It also lays down rules regarding the suspension of the application of the specific rules contained in this Regulation.

2.3.

In accordance with the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, a number of EU legislative acts concerning SPS measures apply to and in the UK in respect of NI after the end of the transition period set out in the Withdrawal Agreement.

2.4.

Accordingly, the entry into NI from GB of certain consignments of products of animal or plant origin, including animal feed, plants for planting, machinery and vehicles for agricultural or forestry purposes and seed potatoes falls within the scope of these acts and is subject to official controls, certification requirements and prohibitions. This also applies to non-commercial movements of certain pet animals.

2.5.

The UK and certain UK-based stakeholders have voiced serious concerns that the Withdrawal Agreement imposes a disproportionately high administrative burden on the entry into NI from GB of certain goods subject to SPS, where destined for final consumers in NI. This would undermine the place of NI within the UK’s internal market.

2.6.

On this basis, the Commission and the UK have agreed a comprehensive set of joint solutions to address everyday issues of all communities in NI, which protect the integrity of both the EU’s and the UK’s internal markets. These include:

—	a simplification of requirements and procedures for the entry into NI from GB of certain retail goods subject to SPS EU acts destined for final consumers in NI;

—	a new solution for the entry into NI from GB of valued products including seed potatoes, plants for planting and machinery and vehicles for agricultural or forestry purposes;

—	application of the UK’s public health and consumer protection standards to retail goods moved to and consumed in NI from GB;

—	simplified travel documentation for non-commercial movement of pet animals accompanying persons travelling to NI from GB.

2.7.

These solutions would in all cases foresee appropriate protection of public, animal and plant health, and safeguards for the integrity of the EU internal market.

3. Specific comments

3.1.

Concerning the labelling of retail goods, Article 4(1)(a) of the proposed Regulation provides that prepacked retail goods entering NI from GB for consumption in NI must bear the marking ‘Not for EU’, as detailed in Article 6.

3.2.

Article 6(1)(a) makes such marking applicable from 1 October 2023. Now, this timescale may be difficult to achieve for some businesses in GB supplying customers in NI. In particular, SMEs may not have the necessary resources, technical or financial, to either meet the deadline or justify the investment needed based on their volume of business.

3.3.

This tight deadline may pose challenges also with regard to data management. The data sets that businesses in the rest of the UK will require to meet the SPS and customs requirements when supplying customers in NI are similar. Having a single data set would be advantageous, not only for businesses, but also for monitoring compliance with SPS and customs requirements. Such a data set may be difficult to achieve by 1 October 2023.

3.4.

If the implementation of Article 6(1)(a) on 1 October 2023 is not possible, then the rate at which identity checks are applied to consignments entering NI from GB could, temporarily, be higher than that indicated in Article 4(3). It is also unclear how EU origin retail packed goods could practically have a ‘Not for EU’ label applied at supermarket retail distribution centres supplying both NI and Ireland.

3.5.

A further potential issue concerns PPPs in NI, which highlights the implications of divergence between the EU and the UK. In NI, most PPPs are used for grassland, and are currently sourced from EU and GB. Maximum residue levels are specific for each PPP, and in some cases are different in the UK and the EU. This leaves NI farmers in a difficult situation; it would be helpful to review the system.

3.6.

Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is the implication of the draft Border Target Operating Model that was published by the UK on 5 April 2023, and which sets out a new model for imports into GB, including SPS controls. This will be introduced from the end of October 2023. This adds to the uncertainty for operators caused by the EU Retained Law Bill, which may lead to thousands of EU laws automatically being scrapped by the end of 2023.

3.7.

Although the EU has amended its ‘delegated regulation’ allowing cattle and sheep to move outside the EU regulatory zone — and therefore NI — and return within 15 days, in practice it is still a challenge for NI cattle breeders.

3.8.

Livestock marts in GB are required to be Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) approved export centres, with all animals using these centres being of the same health status. Scottish Official Tuberculosis Free (OTF) status for tuberculosis (TB) exempts them from having to be TB tested pre-GB sale or show, but English/Welsh breeders would have to TB tested pre-GB sale/show. Since, in a GB context, there is little or no demand for APHA-approved export centres, at present only Carlisle is APHA-approved, and is, therefore, the only mart at which NI cattle can be sold and avail of the EU delegated regulation. This means that if NI animals are offered for sale at a mart that is not APHA-approved, and are not sold, then they must remain in GB for six months before returning to NI, making it financially unviable.

3.9.

Concerning the re-tagging of livestock moved to NI from the rest of the UK, it is currently unclear how this should operate. Currently, cattle entering NI from GB must have, in addition to their two UK tags, an additional GB export tag applied. Within 20 days of entering NI, they must have, in addition, two NI tags applied. Unless tags are removed, this procedure is very impractical and could also have animal welfare implications.

3.10.

On the issue of plant propagation material, like seed potatoes, the framework allows their movement into NI from the rest of the UK, and also from the EU. This allows the continuation of trade between Scotland, in particular, and NI that has been developed over many years prior to Brexit.

3.11.

The proposed documentation and checks that will be associated with this movement of seed potatoes are unlikely to be problematic for businesses. The crops from these NI seed potatoes can be sold to growers within the single market and GB. Ware potatoes can move into NI from the single market for processing and onward sale into the rest of the UK.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_23_1272.

(2) COM(2023) 124 final.

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/149

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age

(COM(2022) 701 final –— 2022/0407 (CNS))

and the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards the VAT administrative cooperation arrangements needed for the digital age

(COM(2022) 703 final —– 2022/0409 (CNS))

(2023/C 228/23)

Rapporteur:	Philip VON BROCKDORFF
Co-rapporteur:	Krister ANDERSSON

Referral	Council of the European Union, 10.2.2023 and 13.2.2023
Legal basis	Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion
Adopted in section	18.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	145/0/0

1. Summary and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the Commission initiative aimed at updating the 30-year-old Value-Added Tax (VAT) rules in order to make the single market function better with less fragmentation, and to make it fit for the digital era.

1.2.

The EESC considers that a VAT system better adapted to the current developments of the digital economy, improving the functioning of the single market, should be the main objective of the proposal. In addition, the proposal should make tax collection effective and timely, reducing VAT fraud and, as a consequence, the VAT gap.

1.3.

In order to fully benefit from the single market, businesses require uniform application of VAT rules across the EU. This can only be ensured by action at EU level, preventing red tape, discrepancies and loopholes in the applicable VAT rules. The EESC encourages the Commission to continue working towards implementation and stresses the importance of explanatory notes or similar guidance to ensure uniformity.

1.4.

The EESC is pleased that the proposed rules for digital platforms and their role in helping the collection of VAT are consistent with previous Commission initiatives on the digital economy.

1.5.

The EESC appreciates that the domestic reverse charge mechanism will be applicable to supplies of both goods and services. The EESC points out that the current system treats goods and services in intra-Community trade differently. The EESC regrets that the comprehensive proposal from the Commission does not take the opportunity to align VAT treatment between goods and services. This would have decreased the administrative burden on businesses, especially on SMEs.

1.6.

The EESC considers that the suggested timeline for reporting intra-Community supplies of goods and services within two days seems unreasonably short. The EESC is worried that the time limit of two days for electronic invoices and reporting would constitute a barrier to intra-community trade, especially since many SMEs are already facing problems with the much longer time limit within the current regulatory framework.

1.7.

The Commission suggests that the possibility of issuing summary invoices be eliminated under the proposal. The EESC considers that summary invoices should not be eliminated since it would create problems in many sectors. The use of summary invoices should always be allowed for domestic transactions. For intra-Community transactions, the EESC notes that another possibility could be to limit the use of summary invoices, e.g. by having a limitation of seven days.

1.8.

The EESC encourages the Commission to continue working towards including VAT deductions in the One Stop Shop (OSS) as soon as possible and towards timely VAT refunds.

1.9.

The EESC is concerned that the considerable implementation costs for the measures in the comprehensive VAT package could lead to higher prices for consumers.

1.10.

The EESC shares the Commission’s view that the intra-EU dimension of VAT fraud requires EU intervention, in line with a proper application of the subsidiarity principle.

1.11.

The EESC points out that the data collected and exchanged between tax authorities could include personal data as well as sensitive business data. Such data must be protected and handled with the utmost care to preserve the integrity of consumers and businesses.

2. Introduction and background

2.1.

On 8 December 2022, the Commission published a package of measures (1) aimed at modernising the EU Value-Added Tax (VAT), with the double purpose of updating the VAT system to the digital era and making it more fraud-resilient, thereby reducing the current VAT gap (estimated at some EUR 93 billion) (2).

2.2.

More specifically, the package is composed of three legislative measures: (i) a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age (3); (ii) a proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (4) regarding the VAT administrative cooperation arrangements; (iii) a proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation, amending Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 as regards information requirements for certain VAT schemes (5).

2.3.

The legislative package pursues three main objectives: (i) modernising VAT reporting obligations by introducing digital reporting requirements (DRR); (ii) addressing the VAT challenges of the so called ‘platform economy’, by clarifying the applicable rules to ensure equal treatment between operators and by enhancing the platforms’ role in collecting VAT; (iii) avoiding the need for multiple VAT registrations across the EU through the introduction of a Single VAT Registration.

2.4.

A mandatory transaction-by-transaction reporting system for intra-Community transactions will be established to provide swift information to Member States. Flexibility will be given to Member States to decide whether to introduce such a reporting system for domestic transactions. Electronic invoicing will play a crucial role within the new reporting scheme, becoming the default system for the issuance of invoices and the basis for digital reporting.

2.5.

All taxable persons will be allowed to report data from electronic invoices which comply with the European standard. Member States will be able to provide for the transmission of data from electronic invoices issued in a different format, as long as they also allow the use of the European standard. The data formats authorised by Member States will have to guarantee interoperability with the European standard for intra-Community transactions.

2.6.

A ‘deemed supplier’ regime (whereby platforms account for VAT on the underlying supply where no VAT is charged by the supplier) will be introduced in the short-term accommodation rental and passenger transport sectors of the platform economy.

2.7.

The implementation of the OSS and the Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) has proven to be a success, reducing complexity. However, some supplies of goods and services are not covered by the OSS simplification scheme. An extension of the scope of the current OSS will be pursued to ensure a further decrease in the need for multiple VAT registrations across the EU. Moreover, the IOSS will be made mandatory for platforms in order to further simplify the import process of e-commerce goods and to make it more fraud-proof.

2.8.

According to the impact assessment (6), the three proposals put forward strike the best balance between all available regulatory options in terms of effectiveness, proportionality and subsidiarity. The impact analysis estimates that, between 2023 and 2032, the implemented measures are expected to generate between EUR 172 billion and EUR 214 billion of net benefits, including EUR 51 billion in savings (EUR 41,4 billion from VAT reporting; EUR 0,5 billion from streamlining and clarifications in the platform economy; and EUR 8,7 billion from removing VAT registration obligations).

3. General comments

3.1.

The EESC welcomes the Commission initiative aimed at updating the 30-year-old VAT rules in order to make the single market function better with less fragmentation, and to make it fit for the digital era. It is a long-awaited step within the VAT action plan implemented by the Commission in the last years. The EESC also considers this proposal an important step towards supporting the single market through enhanced cooperation and uniformity across tax authorities.

3.2.

3.3.

The EESC shares the Commission’s view that the intra-EU dimension of VAT fraud requires EU intervention, in line with a proper application of the subsidiarity principle. The current VAT gap indicates that national instruments are not sufficient to tackle cross-border fraud.

3.4.

Harmonised VAT reporting rules will be conducive to a better functioning and increased consolidation of the single market. Fragmentation and different reporting regimes in different Member States generate administrative burdens for businesses and can constitute a barrier to cross-border selling in the single market. The EESC is aware that Member States have been active in generating their own reporting regimes and that having different types of regimes is making the single market function less effectively. To reduce this fragmentation, a common approach is welcomed. The EESC considers it important that the new reporting obligation leads to the abolition of the recapitulative statements.

3.5.

In order to fully benefit from the single market, businesses require and need a uniform application of VAT rules across the EU, instead of having to comply with different implementation of common rules at national level. This can only be ensured by action at the EU level, preventing red tape, discrepancies and loopholes in the applicable VAT rules. The EESC encourages the Commission to continue working towards uniform implementation and stresses the importance of explanatory notes or similar guidance to ensure uniformity.

4. Specific comments

4.1.

The EESC recalls that businesses, and especially SMEs, will bear substantial costs from the additional administrative burden arising from the introduction of DRR. Even though such costs are necessary in order to effectively modernise the current system, compliance costs for businesses should be as minimal as possible, and continuously monitored during the implementation process in order to assess the burden of compliance.

4.2.

The EESC also notes that the estimated costs of implementation will be very significant for businesses across the EU (7). The EESC warns that the additional cost, particularly for businesses, could result in consumers paying higher prices, as evidenced by a study that proves that (over)-regulation and prices are correlated across numerous businesses (8).

4.3.

The EESC points out that, even though the reporting obligations for intra-Community transactions refer just to B2B transactions, the data collected, and exchanged between tax authorities, may include personal data, and that such data will be stored for at least a five-year period. The collected data will likely also include sensitive business data which need to be protected as well. In this respect, the EESC underlines the principle of data minimisation and the need for full protection of such data. This should be ensured and monitored over time.

4.4.

The EESC positively notes that the proposed rules for digital platforms and their role in helping the collection of VAT are consistent with previous Commission initiatives about the digital economy, including the proposal for a directive to improve the conditions of people working through digital labour platforms. Further, the EESC notes that making the IOSS mandatory will benefit consumers as buying goods from platforms will be easier for them, while at the same time VAT collection on these purchases will be improved.

4.5.

The EESC points out that the current system treats goods and services in intra-Community trade differently, with only services being subject to the reverse charge mechanism. The EESC regrets that the comprehensive proposal from the Commission does not take the opportunity to align VAT treatment between goods and services. Updating the rules in such a way would have aligned the rules with the current economic reality, where customers typically buy solution packages rather than merely goods or services. Such a change would have decreased the administrative burden on businesses, especially SMEs, which currently have to distinguish between separate components of composite supplies merely because of the VAT rules.

4.6.

The EESC supports the Commission’s general objective to make platforms play a greater part within the VAT regulatory framework. The proposals can be seen as an effective approach to tackling distortion of competition. Therefore, the concerns underlying the proposals of a Digital Services Tax have been appropriately and sufficiently addressed.

4.7.

The EESC welcomes the widening of the use of the OSS. This will result in fewer foreign VAT registrations for companies, making compliance less burdensome and less costly, especially for SMEs.

4.8.

The proposed real-time reporting is based on electronic invoicing. Whereas the EESC welcomes the use of digitalisation in the area of taxation, it would like to point out that the level of electronic invoicing varies greatly between Member States. Therefore, it may be relevant for the Commission to note the need for technical support that might be needed in different Member States, and to examine whether such support could be provided to businesses by the Commission and Member States. Further, the EESC thinks that the Commission should be clearer about the European standard for electronic invoicing and the fact that it will evolve over time. The EESC recommends that the Commission publish the European standard as soon as possible so that companies can start preparing for the changes.

4.9.

The EESC points out that the proposal expands the information requirements for invoices, as the International Bank Account Numbers (IBAN) or the equivalent and the payment date both need to be reported. Expanding the invoicing requirements may lead to uncertainties and higher administration costs for businesses. Further, the EESC notes that it is common for businesses to have several IBAN numbers on an invoice and, consequently, there is a need for more clarification on what needs to be reported. The EESC recommends that the Commission examine whether such information can be utilised by the tax administrations to ensure VAT collection. If the information cannot be utilised in VAT collection and controls, it is merely an additional burden for businesses.

4.10.

The EESC considers that the suggested timeline for the reporting of intra-Community supplies of goods and services within two days seems unreasonably short. The EESC also expresses some concerns that the time limit of two days could constitute a barrier to entry for the single market, especially since many SMEs are already facing problems with the much longer time limit within the current regulatory framework.

4.11.

The EESC points out that the time limit of two days may be excessively burdensome for the buyer. The time limit should therefore be increased significantly also taking into account the size of the businesses involved and possibly considering specific exemptions for the smallest enterprises. Further, the EESC notes that tighter due dates often lead to more mistakes and retroactive corrections, which again are sanctioned differently in Member States. The EESC therefore encourages the Commission to advise Member States on limiting the sanctions and interest rates, especially in the early years of adoption.

4.12.

The Commission suggests that the possibility of issuing summary invoices would be eliminated with the proposal. The EESC considers that this may be very difficult for the functioning of certain sectors, and encourages the Commission and the Council to look more closely into the benefits gained by eliminating the possibility, and comparing it with the costs and problems that arise for various sectors with this elimination. The use of summary invoices should always be allowed for domestic transactions. For intra-Community transactions, the EESC notes that another possibility could be to limit the use of summary invoices, e.g. by having a limitation of seven days.

4.13.

Input VAT deductions are a key element of a well-functioning VAT system and differentiate VAT from Goods and services Tax (GST) or other indirect taxes. Whereas the EESC understands that the realities of Member States have not allowed the Commission to suggest that the OSS include input VAT deductions, the EESC encourages the Commission to continue its work on the matter. Even if VAT deductions could not be incorporated into the OSS immediately, the EESC encourages the Commission to examine the possibility of faster VAT refunds for companies that are compliant through the OSS system. Making VAT refunds faster would make the single market function better. Further, as a long-term goal the EESC encourages the Commission to continue working towards having VAT deductions in the OSS in the future.

4.14.

The EESC is concerned that the high implementation costs for the measures set out in the comprehensive VAT package could lead to higher prices for consumers. It is therefore very important to reduce complexity and administrative costs for businesses to the greatest extent possible by ensuring a uniform reporting system and uniform implementation of rules in all Member States.

4.15.

The EESC is also worried about the timelines proposed by the Commission. Whereas the major changes are suggested to come into force in 2028, certain areas of the proposal are already suggested to come to force in 2024. The EESC reminds the Commission that sufficient time is needed to ensure proper implementation. Consequently, the EESC encourages the Commission to make the timeline longer by amending it so that at least a year is provided for implementation after the Council comes to an agreement on the proposal.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) Legislative Package on VAT in digital age, 8.12.2022

(2) However, it should be noted that the VAT GAP varies remarkably from Member State to Member State.

(3) COM(2022) 701 final

(4) OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1

(5) COM(2022) 704 final

(6) SWD(2022) 393 final.

(7) The implementation cost for businesses is estimated at EUR 11,3 billion, whereas the implementation cost for the tax authorities is estimated to be EUR 2,2 billion.

(8) Regulations could be increasing consumer prices

29.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/155

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Commission Staff Working Document — Evaluation of the State subsidy rules for health and social services of general economic interest (‘SGEIs’) and of the SGEI de minimis Regulation

(SWD(2022) 388 final)

(2023/C 228/25)

Rapporteur:	Giuseppe GUERINI
Co-rapporteur:	Paulo BARROS VALE

Referral	European Commission, 8.3.2023
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	4.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	138/0/1

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) observes that it is necessary to reinforce health and social services across the EU considering the progressive ageing of the population and the increasing number of disabled and disadvantaged people requiring appropriate assistance. Such a situation requires an increase in long-term care and support sustained by relevant public investments, businesses and civil society in order to achieve social innovation and to promote an adequate response to the current challenges.

1.2.

The EESC deems that the effort to ensure adequate social and health services will have to be supported with suitable financial resources, deployed in adequate public investments, as well as with specific State aid targeted at such sectors. The current State aid rules, approved in 2012, would therefore need to be adapted to ensure fair competition and the achieving of general interest objectives. Having said that, the EESC notes that the SGEI State aid package approved in 2012 was effective in improving the previous legal framework, dated back to 2005, in terms of simplification and predictability.

1.3.

As noted in a previous opinion (1), the EESC reiterates that the current ceiling of de minimis aid for the SGEIs sector set forth by Commission Regulation (EU) No 360/2012 (2), amounting to EUR 500 000 over three financial years, should certainly be increased, in particular with regard to social and health services, considering the past and future impact of inflation and also the particular role played by these services in favour of the weakest parts of the population and social cohesion.

1.4.

The EESC therefore recommends a significant increase of the de minimis ceiling for health and social services higher to the one recently envisaged in the proposed amendment of the horizontal de minimis ceiling set forth by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 (3), taking into due consideration the increasing strategic role of social and health services across the EU.

1.5.

The EESC also recommends that, in addition to the modification of the maximum de minimis thresholds, some clarifications be put forward with regard to: (i) a more extensive definition of ‘social housing’; (ii) a better definition of the ‘reasonable profit margin’ concept, considering a distinction for the social economy enterprises whose economic margins are linked to a social purpose; (iii) the concept of ‘market failure’.

1.6.

With regard to the concept of ‘reasonable profit margin’, the EESC observes that it would be useful if the Commission could identify criteria and indicators able to correlate the profit margin to be allowed in favour of economic operators in line with their ability to pursue purposes of general interest, thereby creating positive social impacts.

2. General comments

2.1.

With the staff working document Evaluation of the State subsidy rules for health and social services of general economic interest and of the SGEI de minimis Regulation, the Commission summarises the results of its evaluation of the Almunia Package, in force since 2012.

2.2.

The main objectives of the 2012 package with regard to health and social services were: (i) simplifying the compatibility criteria; and (ii) reducing the administrative burden for Member States willing to compensate undertakings entrusted to provide SGEI to the vulnerable part of the population at fair and affordable conditions.

2.3.

The Commission evaluation, therefore, seeks to establish to what extent the rules applicable to health and social services have achieved their objectives and whether such rules are still appropriate in the current social and economic scenario.

2.4.

More specifically, the Commission evaluation assess the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of SGEI rules applied to health and social services in the last 10 years, focusing on understanding the concrete issues faced by Member States in implementing the SGEI rules so far. The evaluation also seeks to gauge how the SGEI de minimis Regulation has been applied.

2.5.

The Commission analysis suggests that the 2012 SGEI Package is quite effective in terms of clarification and simplification, since it simplified the 2005 SGEI Package introducing, for instance, an SGEI-specific de minimis Regulation. It also clarified and refined certain basic concepts relevant for the application of SGEI rules.

2.6.

However, the evaluation indicates that there is still room for improvement, in particular the clarification of certain key concepts related to the scope of application of both Article 107 TFEU and the SGEI-specific legal framework, such as: (i) economic/non-economic activity; (ii) effect on trade; (iii) reasonable profit; (iv) market failure; (v) social housing. The evaluation also highlights the possibility of increasing the SGEI de minimis ceiling currently applicable and the widespread consensus among stakeholders in this respect.

2.7.

With regard to efficiency, the evaluation indicates that the SGEI de minimis Regulation and the modification of the SGEI Decision implemented in 2012 were able to reduce the administrative burden for public authorities, even though this burden might be further decreased. Other evidence collected suggests that costs associated with the application of the requirements set by SGEI rules should be reduced.

2.8.

With regard to coherence, the evaluation suggests that the State aid rules enshrined in the 2012 SGEI Package are internally coherent and able to ensure a better division of tasks between Member States and the Commission, bringing about an EU added value largely acknowledged by both public and private stakeholders.

2.9.

In general terms, there is consensus that the 2012 SGEI Package managed to guarantee a stable legal environment for Member States and is appropriate to meet needs within the EU. However, the impact and the uncertainties determined by both the COVID-19 crisis and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could not be fully evaluated yet and some further improvements might be pursued in the future.

2.10.

Welfare and health protection systems across the EU should in the first place be guaranteed and supported by adequate public investments, coupled with the growing role of private economic operators and of social economy entities. All the players, public or private, involved in delivering social and health services should observe adequate standards and criteria able to reconcile competition with general interest objectives.

3. Specific comments

3.1.

The EESC appreciates the extensive consultation and subsequent evaluation work carried out by the Commission in assessing the impact and the current effects of the 2012 rules on State aid in order to compensate SGEIs with particular regard to health and social services.

3.2.

The EESC welcomes the consideration the Commission devoted to its own-initiative opinion State aid rules applicable to health and social services — SGEI in a post-pandemic scenario. Thoughts and proposals on the Commission evaluation to amend the 2012 legislative package (4), as well as to the work carried out on the same subject matter by the Committee of the Regions.

3.3.

The EESC appreciates the public consultation conducted by the Commission between 31 July 2019 and 4 December 2019 and the expert study developed between June 2020 and May 2021. Such consultations contributed to making the evaluation process more transparent and democratic, notwithstanding the highly technical nature of the subject matter under examination.

3.4.

The EESC would like to emphasise, once again, that the 2012 package laying down rules on State aid applying to SGEI was definitely useful in updating and simplifying the previous rules, which dated back to 2005. The regulatory approach taken by this package should therefore be retained in future, simply updating certain matters and pursuing further simplification, clarity, and legal certainty.

3.5.

The EESC deems that the enlargement of the notification exemption threshold for certain social services brought about by Commission Decision 2012/21/EU (5) — and evaluated by the Commission in its working document — has facilitated the provision of health and social SGEIs at national level. Indeed, it reduced the administrative burden on public authorities, ensuring more legal predictability and flexibility for enterprises. Such an extension practically demonstrates that the Commission considers health and social services as a subgroup with autonomous features within the broader framework of SGEI.

3.6.

The EESC believes that the definition of ‘social housing’ could be slightly extended. The current definition reads as follows: ‘undertakings in charge of social services, including the provision of social housing for disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups, who due to solvency constraints are unable to obtain housing at market conditions, should also benefit from the exemption from notification provided for in this decision’. It would therefore be important to include in the definition other serious, duly verifiable situations of people not strictly ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘less advantaged’ and not technically ‘insolvent’ or with ‘solvability constraints’, such as vulnerable individuals including women subject to domestic violence and also elderly people. Moreover, access to housing is an essential condition for social inclusion, and the situation of young people in Europe would justify public investment policies in housing intended for them.

3.7.

The EESC reiterates its request for further clarification about the concept of the ‘reasonable margin of profit’ SGEI suppliers can receive in addition to compensation of the costs incurred delivering the service. On this point, the EESC shares the Committee of the Regions’ observation pointing out that ‘local and regional authorities are insufficiently equipped to determine the reference points for a reasonable profit’. In addition to further clarification about the concept of the ‘reasonable margin of profit’ the Commission could provide additional guidance on this matter, to support public authorities. The EESC emphasises the importance of local authorities being able to know and manage the relevant rules clearly and easily. Establishing what can be considered a reasonable margin of profit should involve an evaluation of the concrete contribution to the attainment of the general interest made by enterprises involved in the provision of social and health services.

3.8.

As highlighted by the Commission evaluation, the situation is made even worse by the fact that certain Member States indicated that ‘they do not allow SGEI providers to get a reasonable profit as part of the compensation due to the complexity of the concept’.

3.9.

The EESC deems that, in the ‘reasonable profit margin’ definition, a distinction should be made in favour of social economy enterprises, which are bound to reinvest the economic margins generated into their own statutory activities, thereby creating a virtuous economic effect which should be encouraged and supported.

3.10.

The EESC underlines the necessity to take into consideration the most recent case law of the European Court of Justice on the notion of ‘economic activity’ for the purpose of adapting the 2012 SGEI Package rules in the future, underlining that specific activities related to health and social services might not be economic in nature. In the event that an entity concurrently carries out both economic and non-economic activities, keeping separated and clear accounting is a very useful tool to ensure transparency and avoid cross-subsidisation.

3.11.

The EESC would like to reiterate that within individual Member States, health services and almost all social care services are organised by region, county or even town. This means that user mobility between regions or counties in a given country is very limited, which a fortiori excludes a credible effect on trade between Member States.

3.12.

In their evaluation, the Commission services note that it is a priori difficult to exclude an effect on trade for all health and social services and that the relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the recipient undertaking does not a priori mean that trade between Member States may not be affected. Although the Commission position is understandable and in line with ECCJ case law, the EESC points out that competition and inter-state investments could be ensured by allowing a stable financing of health and social services at the local level and, at the same time, keeping public incentives open on a non-discriminatory basis for entities wishing to enter a given market from another Member State.

3.13.

A large number of stakeholders considered that the clarification of the notion of ‘market failure’ enshrined in the 2012 package facilitated compliance with the SGEI rules applicable to health and social services, at least partially. In this respect, the EESC wishes to note that a market failure can be flagged not only in the event that a given service is not delivered by the market, but also and especially when the market is not able to deliver adequate quality, as well as fair and affordable access for everybody to the service, with adverse consequences on social cohesion and equal opportunities.

3.14.

The EESC supports the view of the majority of stakeholders consulted by the Commission in considering that the current ceiling of EUR 500 000 set forth by Regulation (EU) No 360/2012 is not adequate to the current financing needs required for the operation of an SGEI, since the de minimis ceiling appears to be easily reached in many cases, with the average amount of State support substantially increasing on average since 2012. Such a threshold should be increased even further for entities which, in accordance with their statutes and the law, are required to reinvest the revenues obtained in accordance with the social objective they pursue, as is the case for social enterprises (6).

3.15.

As to the matter at hand, the EESC emphasises the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social and health services, as well as the impact of inflation, which has massively increased in the last three years. It follows that an increase of the de minimis ceiling possibly even higher than the one recently proposed and the adapting of Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 would be justified in light of the strategic role played by health and social services across the EU and should therefore be seriously considered, even though the ordinary ceiling under (EU) Regulation No 1407/2013 was in force for a longer time.

3.16.

The EESC observes that the increasing of the de minimis threshold currently set at EUR 500 000 over three financial years would provide legal certainty to operators, as well as to local administrations and authorities willing to support social and medical infrastructure. The situation of access to care in many Member States is worrying and the Commission must support the efforts of Member States wishing to invest in such areas.

3.17.

As expressed in the opinion An action plan for the social economy (7), the EESC highlights the importance of the social economy to health and social services, whose activity should be supported by clarifying the access requirements regarding the SGEI sector as well as the amount of support available under State aid for social economy entities.

3.18.

The EESC points out that the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine on the 2012 SGEI package are not fully analysed in the Commission working document, but they are considered where relevant. In this respect, it is worth noting that both the COVID-19 pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine made the role of health and social services even more relevant and crucial than in the past (8) and adversely impacted on the activity and functioning of the players involved in delivering such services. A legal framework able to ensure a stable, effective, and simplified public financing of social and health services is therefore even more necessary.

3.19.

The EESC finally observes that the European Commission has recently started working on a more flexible and effective legal framework for financing the green transition in order to adequately adapt EU policies to the Inflation Reduction Act adopted by the United States of America. The international competitiveness of the EU is certainly a good reason to adapt the current legal framework on State aid. By the same token, an adaptation and an adequate simplification of the current rules on health and social services would be equally justified and certainly conducive to better services for people also given the growing assistance needs highlighted by the documents concerning the European Care Strategy for care givers and care receivers (9).

3.20.

Lastly, the EESC reiterates the particular importance of carefully monitoring the use of State aid in the field of health and social services with the aim of avoiding irregularities or abuses by the economic operators involved in such critical sectors.

Brussels, 27 April 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

(1) OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 131.

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 360/2012 of 25 April 2012 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid granted to undertakings providing services of general economic interest (OJ L 114, 26.4.2012, p. 8).

(3) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid (OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 1).

(4) OJ C 323, 26.8.2022, p. 8.

(5) Commission Decision 2012/21/EU of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3).

(6) OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 131.

(7) OJ C 323, 26.8.2022, p. 38.

(8) As highlighted by the increase in social and health services expenditure by Member States in recent years highlighted by the Commission evaluation.

(9) https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&furtherNews=yes&newsId=10382#navItem-relatedDocuments.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 228

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 66 29 June 2023

Contents		page
	I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions
	OPINIONS
	European Economic and Social Committee
	578th EESC plenary session – renewal session, 26.4.2023-27.4.2023
2023/C 228/01	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EESC’s recommendations for a solid reform of the European Semester (own-initiative opinion)	1
2023/C 228/02	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the right to a healthy environment in the European Union, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine (own-initiative opinion)	10
2023/C 228/03	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on further enhancing the EU’s digital competitiveness (exploratory opinion)	17
2023/C 228/04	Opinion for the European Economic and Social Committee on the Single Market at 30 – how to further improve the functioning of the Single Market (exploratory opinion)	22
2023/C 228/05	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Precarious work and mental health (exploratory opinion requested by the Spanish Presidency)	28
2023/C 228/06	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on democracy at work (exploratory opinion requested by the Spanish Presidency)	43
2023/C 228/07	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Social Imbalances Procedure (exploratory opinion at the request of the Spanish Presidency)	58
2023/C 228/08	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the competence and skill development in a context of the dual green and digital transition (exploratory opinion requested by the Swedish Presidency)	64
2023/C 228/09	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the European Disability Card (exploratory opinion from the European Commission)	71
2023/C 228/10	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the initiative on virtual worlds, such as the metaverse (exploratory opinion at the request of the European Commission)	76
2023/C 228/11	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the transition to a long-term sustainable transport system (exploratory opinion requested by the Swedish Presidency)	81

	III Preparatory acts
	European Economic and Social Committee
	578th EESC plenary session – renewal session, 26.4.2023-27.4.2023
2023/C 228/12	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (COM(2023) 38 final – 2023/0012 (NLE)) and on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union: harnessing its full potential for managing fair transitions (COM(2023) 40 final)	87
2023/C 228/13	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information (API) for enhancing and facilitating external border controls, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/817 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1726, and repealing Council Directive 2004/82/EC (COM(2022) 729 final) and on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/818 (COM(2022) 731 final)	97
2023/C 228/14	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 (COM(2022) 586 final — 2022/0365(COD))	103
2023/C 228/15	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (COM(2022) 732 final – 2022/0426(COD)) and the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (Fourth Report) (COM(2022) 736 final)	108
2023/C 228/16	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC (COM(2022) 677 final – 2022/0396 (COD))	114
2023/C 228/17	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (COM(2022) 748 final – 2022/0432 (COD))	121
2023/C 228/18	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a Strong and Sustainable EU Algae Sector (COM(2022) 592 final)	126
2023/C 228/19	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – EU policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics (COM(2022) 682 final)	132
2023/C 228/20	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific rules relating to medicinal products for human use intended to be placed on the market of Northern Ireland (COM(2023) 122 final – 2023/0064 (COD))	141
2023/C 228/21	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland (COM(2023) 124 final – 2023/0062 (COD))	144
2023/C 228/22	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European statistics on population and housing, amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 763/2008 and (EU) No 1260/2013 (COM(2023) 31 final —– 2023/0008 (COD))	148
2023/C 228/23	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age (COM(2022) 701 final –— 2022/0407 (CNS)) and the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards the VAT administrative cooperation arrangements needed for the digital age (COM(2022) 703 final —– 2022/0409 (CNS))	149
2023/C 228/24	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences (COM (2023)126 final)	154
2023/C 228/25	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Commission Staff Working Document — Evaluation of the State subsidy rules for health and social services of general economic interest (SGEIs) and of the SGEI de minimis Regulation (SWD(2022) 388 final)	155

Referral	Council of the European Union, 15.2.2023
Legal basis	Articles 338(1) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	142/0/1

Referral	European Parliament, 16.3.2023 Council of the European Union, 23.3.2023
Legal basis	Article 91(1) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	133/0/0