Corporate Europe Observatory, alongside Greenpeace, Lobbycontrol and Spinwatch, have submitted a complaint
about the Commission's repeated refusal to take the revolving door
problem seriously. The 'revolving door' describes the movement of staff
from public sector positions to lobby jobs in the private sector, or
vice versa. The Commission's laissez-faire approach to the revolving door has
failed to prevent former employees selling their knowledge and
influence to industry, while industry lobbyists are recruited to work on
the staff. Rules exist, but are not being properly implemented - and
when breaches do occur, no proper sanctions are imposed. We have
submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman as we believe this
situation undermines the credibility of decision making in the
Commission, contributing to the corporate capture of the EU.
A large number of senior EU staff have moved through the
"revolving door" to jobs as industry lobbyists, or vice versa, creating
potential conflicts of interest.* Over the years that CEO and other
watchdog groups have been documenting these cases,
the Commission has seemed reluctant to take the breaches of its own
rules seriously. Frequently failing to impose restrictions or
cooling-off periods where there is clear risk of conflicts of interest,
neglecting to impose sanctions when rules are breached, and
systematically failing to properly scrutinise the moves.
*
The OECD defines a conflict of interest as occurring: “when an
individual or a corporation (either private or governmental) is in a
position to exploit his or their own professional or official capacity
in some way for personal or corporate benefit.”
A large number of senior EU staff have moved through the
"revolving door" to jobs as industry lobbyists, or vice versa, creating
potential conflicts of interest.* Over the years that CEO and other
watchdog groups have been documenting these cases,
the Commission has seemed reluctant to take the breaches of its own
rules seriously. Frequently failing to impose restrictions or
cooling-off periods where there is clear risk of conflicts of interest,
neglecting to impose sanctions when rules are breached, and
systematically failing to properly scrutinise the moves.
The Staff Regulations
that govern the EU institutions should ensure that staff are
scrutinised for conflicts of interest, both when entering and leaving
their position. For two years after leaving, staff must inform the
Commission of new jobs. If such jobs relate to the work they did as an
official, and could lead to a conflict with “the legitimate interests of
the institution”, the Commission can forbid it, or approve it subject
to appropriate conditions or restrictions. Yet the Commission repeatedly
fails to ensure staff are aware of, or that they comply with, their
obligations, it inadequately scrutinises new jobs, and fails to impose
appropriate restrictions.
The complaint highlights 10
cases that illustrate the revolving door problem and the Commission's
refusal to address it, including:
- the former EU ambassador to the United States, John Bruton, who went on to became a senior advisor to Brussels-based lobby consultancy Cabinet DN. Bruton did not inform the Commission of his move and later said he did not know he was supposed to;
- a
former senior Energy Advisor in the Commission, Derek Taylor, who
retired after 25 years, and immediately set up his own energy
consultancy and took several other energy lobby jobs, but only applied
for permission two years later. Despite this breach of rules, the
Commission requested no further details nor imposed any sanctions or
restrictions;
- the Head of Cabinet to Enterprise and Industry Commissioner Verheugen, Petra Erler, set up an EU lobby consultancy with Verheugen immediately after leaving her post, but only applied for permission four months later, noting that she had not been made aware of this requirement. Authorisation was granted, with narrow restrictions, despite the documented disagreement of all staff representatives on an internal advisory committee.
The complaint's submission comes just days after the European Court of Auditors condemned the Commission's agencies
for failing to manage conflicts of interest, including those created by
the revolving door. The four Commission agencies, which make vital
decisions affecting people's health and safety in the areas of aviation,
chemicals, food and medicines, were all found to inadequately manage
the risk of conflicts of interest.
The Court's
investigation uncovered declarations of interest left unexamined in
sealed envelopes by the chemicals agency. They found that EFSA, the food
safety agency, saw no conflict of interest in their experts acting as
private sector double agents - simultaneously providing private
consultancy on the same concept they were scientifically reviewing. Nor
was a conflict of interest identified in allowing the majority of a
scientific body, designed to neutrally assess a concept, to be former
advocates of that same concept.
It is becoming more
and more evident that there is an institutional lack of recognition of
the impacts that unmanaged conflicts of interest, and undue influence of
corporate interests via the revolving door, have on public-interest
decision making.
CEO, along with other civil society
groups, have been campaigning for the Commission to take firmer action
against revolving door cases, but Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, in charge of transparency issues,
has repeatedly dismissed these concerns, implying that there are no
consistent failures, or that the revolving door problem has been solved.
This
attitude, and the wider political culture, have precipitated our
complaint to the Ombudsman. The 10 case studies, alongside our
continually updated RevolvingDoorWatch, illustrate that the revolving door problem is alive and well.
Read the complaint here.
