Palkkojen paikallinen sopiminen etenee Ruotsia hitaammin erityisesti julkisella sektorilla

EK:n selvitys: Pohjoismaiden palkanmuodostus

 

Lausunto koskien valtioneuvoston periaatepäätöstä yrittäjyydestä

Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö 21.1.2022
VN/27217/2021

1 Onko yrittäjyyden periaatepäätöksessä otettu huomioon yrittäjyyden edistämisen näkökulmasta keskeisimmät asiat?

Ei. Mitä lisäisit tai muuttaisit? [Yrittäjyyden periaatepäätöksen lähtökohtana todetaan, että yrittäjyyden tarkastelun tulee kytkeytyä kaikkiin yritysten toimintaan vaikuttaviin politiikkalohkoihin ja kehitystavoitteisiin. EK pitää lähtökohtaa kannatettavana ja kiittää etenkin ajatusta ylihallituskautisesta toiminnasta, jonka toteutumista seurataan perustettavassa Yrittäjyyden neuvottelukunnassa. Keskisuurten työnantajayritysten merkitys on huomioitu hyvin periaatepäätöksen johdannossa, mutta itse toimenpide-ehdotuksissa tämä näkökulma jää heikommaksi. EK katsoo, että omistaja- ja yrittäjätason tarkastelu ansaitsisi toimenpiteissä suuremman painoarvon. Työvoiman saatavuus on tällä hetkellä yritysten suurimpia haasteita ja osaajapula estää monissa yrityksissä jopa kasvusuunnitelmien toteutuksen. Tämän vuoksi onkin yllättävää, että työvoiman saatavuutta käsittelevä luku kolme näkee ongelman ratkaisuna ennen kaikkea pk-yritysten työnantajamielikuvan ja rekrytointiosaamisen vahvistamisen, eikä huomioi lainkaan esimerkiksi työnteon kannustimia. EK:n selvitysten mukaan työnantajamielikuva tai rekrytointiosaaminen eivät nouse yritysten vastauksissa suuriksi osaavan työvoiman saatavuutta estäviksi haasteiksi, vaan kyse on enemmänkin siitä, että avoimiin paikkoihin ei tule joko lainkaan hakijoita tai heidän osaamisensa ei kohtaa haussa olevan tehtävän kanssa. Investointien lupaprosessien sujuvoittaminen on tärkeä tavoite. Periaatepäätöksessä kirjoitetaan yritysten lupaprosesseihin liittyvän asioinnin ja lupakäsittelyjen nopeuttamisesta. EK huomauttaa, että näiden lisäksi etenkin muutoksenhaku- ja valitusmenettelyt on tarpeen saada sujuvimmiksi. Valitukset ja muutoksenhaut olivat yritysten suurin kritiikin kohde EK:n marraskuussa 2021 julkaisemassa investointiluvitusta koskeneessa yrityskyselyssä. Omistajanvaihdosten nostaminen esiin periaatepäätöksessä on kannatettava huomio. Viime vuonna julkaistun Omistajanvaihdosbarometrin mukaan yli puolet yli 55-vuotiaista yrittäjistä haluaa luopua yrityksestään viimeistään vuonna 2024. Seuraavan kymmenen vuoden aikana kaksi kolmesta tähtää yrityskauppaan tai sukupolvenvaihdokseen, mutta neljännes valmistautuu yritystoiminnan lakkauttamiseen. Yrityksen omistajanvaihdosprosessit ovat yleensä monivuotisia, pitkäjänteistä kehitystä, jonka takia sääntelyssä jatkuvuus ja ennakoitavuus ovat erityisen tärkeitä.]

2 Mitä tulisi erityisesti ottaa huomioon yrittäjyyden periaatepäätöksen toteuttamisessa?

Periaatepäätöksen toimeenpano edellyttää pitkäjänteisyyttä sekä yritysnäkökulman huomiointia kaikessa päätöksenteossa. Yritysvaikutusten arviointi on yksi lähtökohta, mutta laajemminkin olisi kannatettavaa lisätä ministeriöiden välistä keskustelua eri päätösten ja strategioiden vaikutuksista yrityksiin ja yrittäjiin.    Lisäksi olisi tärkeää, että periaatepäätös sisältäisi arvion tai toimenpidesuosituksen, miten päätöksen linjauksiin voitaisiin sitoutua yli puoluerajojen ja yli hallituskausien.

3 Ovatko yrittäjyyden periaatepäätöksen toimenpiteet poikkihallinnollisen yhteistoiminnan ja koordinaation varmistamiseksi riittävät (toimenpide 6.1.)?

Ei. Mitä lisäisit tai muuttaisit?  [Yrittäjyyden neuvottelukunta on kannatettava ehdotus. Neuvottelukuntaan on syytä koota laaja yrittäjyyttä tuntevien sidosryhmien edustus. Sen sijaan EK toivoo jo tässä vaiheessa konkreettista esitystä siitä, kuinka poikkihallinnollinen yhteistoiminta ja koordinaatio ministeriöiden kesken toteutetaan. Esitys antaisi paremman pohjan viedä poikkihallinnollisia toimia tehokkaasti eteenpäin. ]

4 Ovatko esitetyt seurantamittarit kattavat yrittäjyyden periaatepäätöksen seuraamiseksi (kohta IV)?

On myönteistä, että taloutta seurataan periaatepäätöksen lopussa olevien indikaattoreiden avulla. Ne eivät kuitenkaan välttämättä kerro periaatepäätöksessä esitettyjen uudistusten onnistumisesta, koska muutokset voivat johtua talouden yleisestä kehityksestä. Indikaattoreiden joukkoon tulisi ottaa myös määrärahalisäyksiä tai vähennyksiä, jotka kuvaavat todellisia muutoksia resurssien käytössä.

5 Miten voidaan kehittää ministeriöiden välistä poikkihallinnollista yhteistyötä yrittäjyyden periaatepäätöksen toteuttamiseksi?

Kun yrittäjyysnäkökulma ja yritysvaikutusten arviointi ovat osa kaikkea päätöksentekoa, tukee se luontaisesti ministeriöiden yhteistyötä.

6 Muut mahdolliset huomiot yrittäjyyden periaatepäätökseen.

–

 

 

Antti Tanskanen: Hallitusohjelman työllisyystoimet arvioitua suurempia

Juttu on julkaistu ensimmäiseksi 24.1. Turun Sanomissa

Hallituksen työllisyystoimien vaikutukset ovat Suomen julkisen talouden alijäämään ja työllisyyteen valtiovarainministeriön arviota suurempia ilmenee ns. elinkaarimallin laskelmista. Työmarkkinoita kuvaavan elinkaarimallin tulokset kertovat, että hallitusohjelman toimet parantavat työllisyyttä 53 000 lisätyöllisellä ja vahvistavat julkista taloutta noin 2,6 mrd eurolla. Mallissa on huomioitu mm. työttömyysturvan porrastus, työssäoloehdon pidennyt 12 kuukauteen ja lapsikorotusten lakkauttaminen sekä työn verotuksen keventäminen. Valtiovarainministeriön arvion (Hallitusohjelma 2023) mukaan näiden vaikutus julkisen talouteen olisi yli miljardin ja 6000 työllistä pienempi.

Valtiovarainministeriö arvioi työllisyysvaikutuksia tutkimuskirjallisuuden perusteella, usein erilaisten joustojen avulla. Työllisyysjousto kuvaa esimerkiksi sitä, miten työttömyysjaksojen kesto muuttuu, kun ansiosidonnaisen työttömyysturvan kestoa muutetaan.

Toinen tapa arvioida työllisyysvaikutuksia on käyttää elinkaarimallia, joka kuvaa sitä, miten yksilöt tekevät työllistymispäätöksiä. Tällaisella mallilla on arvioitu mm. sitä, miten eläkeuudistus vaikuttaa työllistymiseen (Lassila, Määttänen ja Valkonen 2015). Nyt tarkastelussa olevaan elinkaarimalliin (Tanskanen 2020, Tanskanen ja Kotamäki 2021) on otettu mukaan Suomen työmarkkinauudistuksia, sosiaaliturvaa ja verotusta.  Tätä mallia on sovitettu vuosien 2018-2022 tietojen perusteella ja tässä pystytään mallintamaan havaitun työllisyysasteen, osatyöllisten määrän ja työttömien jakaumat.

Hallitusohjelman toimista elinkaarimallissa on huomioitu työttömyysturvan porrastus, työssäoloehdon pidennyt 12 kuukauteen, omavastuupäivien nosto seitsemään, lapsikorotusten lakkauttaminen, suojaosan poistaminen, työttömyysturvan ikäsidonnaisista poikkeussäännöistä luopuminen, asumisen tukien uudistaminen, ja työn verotuksen keventäminen. Mallissa ei ole huomioitu esimerkiksi aikuisopiskelutuen lakkautusta, KEL-indeksin jäädytystä ja työttömyysturvan lomarahojen jaksotusta.

Kun elinkaarimallilla arvioidaan työllisyyttä hallitusohjelman mukaisen lainsäädännön vallitessa ja verrataan tuloksia arvioon työllisyydestä nykytilasta, antaa malli arvion hallitusohjelman muutosten työllisyysvaikutuksista. Tulokset ovat yksiselitteiset: hallitusohjelman toimet parantavat työllisyyttä ja vahvistavat julkista taloutta.

Tulokset tukevat suuruusluokaltaan valtiovarainministeriön arviota työllisyysvaikutuksista: mallin mukaan työllisyys paranee 53 000 (VM 47 tuhatta). Suurempi ero löytyy vaikutuksesta julkiseen talouteen. Elinkaarimallissa julkinen talous paranee hallituskaudella 2,6 miljardilla eurolla, VM:n laskelmissa vain 1,4 miljardilla eurolla.

Ero julkisen elinkaarimallin ja valtiovarainministeriön arvion välille talouden vahvistumiseen tulee erityisesti arviosta, kuinka paljon palkkasumma kasvaa työllisyyden parantumisen seurauksena. Elinkaarimallissa vuoden palkkasumma kasvaa 3,5 mrd euroa, mikä kasvattaa tuloverokertymää ja pienentää etuusmenoa. Tästä kasvusta ylivoimaisesti suurin osa tulee työnteon kasvun kautta ja loppu siitä, että työnteko parantaa ansioita, kun palkattomat jaksot työuran kuluessa vähenevät.

Elinkaarimalli arvioi myös julkisen talouden vahvistumisen suuremmaksi mm. arvonlisäverokertymän kasvamisen vuoksi. Elinkaarimalli huomioi useampia vaikutuskanavia kuin joustoihin perustuva laskenta, joten on luontevaa, että elinkaarimalli arvioi vaikutukset suuremmiksi.

Valtiovarainministeriö on arvioinut työllisyysvaikutukset toimenpide kerrallaan. Elinkaarimalli huomioi kaikki vaikutukset samaan aikaan. Kaikkiaan hallitus tavoittelee hallitusohjelmassa sovituilla toimilla 100 000 lisätyöllistä, joista osa saavutetaan laskentamallien ulkopuolelta.

Lähteet

Orpon hallituksen Hallitusohjelma (2023) liite D. Rakennepoliittiset toimet

Lassila, Määttänen ja Valkonen (2015), Työeläkeuudistus 2017: vaikutukset työuriin, tulonjakoon ja julkisen talouden kestävyyteen

Tanskanen, A.J., Kotamäki, M. (2021), Lafferin käyrä heterogeenisessa populaatiossa – ja miksi verolajilla on väliä Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja, 3, 383-406.

Tanskanen, A. J. (2020). Työllisyysvaikutuksien arviointia tekoälyllä: Unelmoivatko robotit ansiosidonnaisesta sosiaaliturvasta? Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja, 2, 292-321.

 

Vaalirahoitus

Kasvua Suomen ja Ruotsin talouskumppanuudesta – tillväxt tillsammans!

Suomen ja Ruotsin hallitukset pitävät tänään yhteiskokousta Tukholmassa. Samassa yhteydessä myös EK ja sisarjärjestömme Svenskt Näringsliv järjestävät seminaarin, jossa haetaan yhdessä pääministerien ja talousvaikuttajien kanssa keinoja syventää elinkeinoelämän kumppanuutta Suomen ja Ruotsin välillä. EK ja Svenskt Näringsliv tulevat tiivistämään yhteistyötään sekä kansallisesti että EU-tasolla.

Tänään on julkistettu EK:n ja Svenskt Näringslivin yhteistyöasiakirja. Tavoitteemme on tiivistää Suomen ja Ruotsin talouskumppanuutta – yhteistyöllä rakennamme lisää talouskasvua ja vahvempaa kilpailukykyä.

Järjestömme näkevät merkittävää potentiaalia muun muassa uusissa teknologioissa ja innovaatiotoiminnassa, vihreässä taloudessa sekä turvallisuus- ja puolustusyhteistyössä, pk-sektorin yrittäjyys mukaan lukien. Haemme yhteistyön synergiaa niin maittemme kahdenvälisissä suhteissa kuin EU-politiikan alueilla.

Sweden and Finland – the most attractive region in Europe  to employ, invest and grow

Swedish-Finnish Business Declaration on Deepened Cooperation

Sweden and Finland are two countries tied together by common geography, people, history, culture, language, security, business relationships, a shared commitment to European integration and our membership in NATO. Both countries are leaders in areas of education, research, innovation and entrepreneurship. Similarly, we both are pursuing ambitious agendas on green, digital transition, coupled with advanced high technology industrial bases.

Against a backdrop of far-reaching geopolitical changes, it is increasingly important to take advantage of the current clear opportunities for reinforcing the competitive positions of our two countries. As a result, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and the Confederation of Finnish Industries are seeking to intensify their existing cooperation.

We are committed to advocating – at both at national and at European levels – for policies that will help boost our competitiveness through open and competitive markets. Sweden and Finland must be the most competitive locations in the world for sustainable growth and investment, based on technological excellence, high investment in RDI, affordable fossil-free energy, skilled workforces and streamlined administrative processes – including permitting. At the European level, we will work together to ensure the best possible framework for sustainable growth and competitiveness, based on our own strengths – the Single Market and open trade policies. A new legislative cycle must deliver proportionate, high-quality and evidence-based regulation, designed specifically to make our markets more dynamic and to unlock our economic potential. We will also advocate for EU policies that promote the best strategic frontrunner projects for advancing the green and digital transitions.

This joint declaration will provide the impetus needed to deepen the cooperation between our two organisations. It outlines ways in which we can undertake joint action at both national and EU levels in a number of specific areas. These include digital growth, energy security, defence and security, natural resources and biodiversity as well as trade.

Competitiveness through digital leadership

The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and the Confederation of Finnish Industries are committed to promoting Sweden and Finland as Europe’s digital frontrunners for data-driven economic growth and the use of key enabling technologies such as AI, telecoms and cybersecurity to boost productivity and to create solutions for the green transition.

To promote a growth-enhancing EU digital agenda, this Swedish-Finnish collaboration will continue to focus on strengthening the EU’s digital innovation capacity and competitiveness. This includes an open and fair data economy, cybersecurity, a well-functioning Single Market, technologies (including AI, 5G and 6G), skills and digital infrastructure. The ongoing transition provides new business opportunities, but it will require a more differentiated approach; one with a greater emphasis on better regulation and less protectionism. To maintain our competitive edge, it is also vital to boost R&D and innovation in data economy while safeguarding a competitive European standardisation ecosystem, with ‘international first’ as a guiding principle.

We share a common understanding of our national digital strategy priorities and our priorities for creating situational awareness in Sweden and Finland, and with other partners such as the Nordic Countries, the B9+ coalition and BusinessEurope. In order to support digitalisation at national level, we are committed to creating better conditions for digital growth through the exchange of information, experiences and best practices.

Growth from fossil free and affordable energy

The Nordic countries deregulated their power markets in the early 1990s and brought their markets together into a common Nordic market. Sweden and Finland have been global leaders in sustainable energy and climate transition, relying heavily on similar mixes of fossil-free energy sources such as nuclear, biofuels, hydropower and wind power. Both Sweden and Finland have strong industrial bases with many energy-intensive industries. The two countries’ power systems are highly integrated, increasing their resilience and flexibility and serving to offset increasing price volatility on the national power markets.

Swedish and Finnish companies are at the forefront of providing new clean technologies to phase-out emissions. The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and the Confederation of Finnish Industries are both steadfast supporters of the EU’s net zero target and ambitious climate policy towards this goal. This transition will require additional fossil free electricity production at competitive costs. Technology-neutral policies for e.g. nuclear technologies and renewable power generation must be a guiding principle for the EU in facilitating this transition, along with strengthened competitiveness and resilience.

The EU and its Member States need to further streamline policies for permitting and to ensure policy coherence between energy consumption targets and the need to scale up fossil-free energy production. The Nordic energy market will also need to continue to evolve and integrate further, not least in the light of the changing energy security landscape.

Resilience from sustainably used natural resources

Both Sweden and Finland have significant natural resources and highly advanced industries, notably within the forestry, mining and other biobased sectors. By enhancing our bilateral cooperation and our joint advocacy efforts within the EU, we will be well-positioned to further strengthen our competitiveness while demonstrating leadership in how to preserve and strengthen biodiversity and use resources sustainably. Climate change – together with the loss of biodiversity and scarcity of natural resources – can exacerbate geopolitical tensions, undermine economic security and disrupt value chains. To build resilience, Sweden and Finland should increase their collaboration, with the aim of developing new incentives and market-based solutions that support innovation and the sustainable use of natural resources. They should also partner and share best practises with other countries that are important providers of such assets.

Security, defence and preparedness

With the ongoing Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, increasing geopolitical and economic tensions and the threats posed by climate change, the reality of our security needs has fundamentally changed. Given these multidimensional and coinciding threats, there is a growing need for efforts to strengthen security through increased military spending, a greater focus on preparedness and improved capabilities for tackling cyber threats.

Only a strong, stable and resilient economy can sustain its security. This means that improving the European business climate at large is absolutely vital. Measures should include safeguarding open trade, ensuring a strict competition policy and advancing measures to improve cybersecurity. Support for Ukraine for as long as is needed is crucial, and maintaining a united front on sanctions is of fundamental importance. We will also work together in support of a stronger European defence industry and a Single Market for Defence, with an emphasis on tackling the root causes of lagging production capacity and on creating the appropriate incentives.

We are addressing these challenges on a national level, jointly on a Nordic level but there is also a clear merit for the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and the Confederation of Finnish Industries to work together on these issues bilaterally, tapping into and complementing already established and well-functioning cooperation between Sweden and Finland’s defence industry organizations and their Nordic counterparts.

A push for open markets for trade

Trade is the cornerstone of both the Swedish and Finnish economies. We depend on open markets for trade in both goods and services, for exports and for imports and investments. As a result, we also share the ambitions of an EU trade policy aimed at continued economic openness, support for the WTO and greater market access through free trade agreements with countries and regions such as Mercosur, Australia and India, as well as through ‘mini deals’ and strategic partnerships.

Legitimate concerns over security, sustainability and unfair trade practices need to be taken seriously, but we believe that policy efforts in these areas should not undermine our open trade regime. Here, Sweden and Finland must take the lead. From a business side, we will continue to further strengthen and enhance our Nordic-Baltic trade dialogue. We also commit to further increasing our advocacy efforts in the U.S. to build stronger trade relations between the EU and the U.S. We will work together to ensure sufficient EU support and funding for the reconstruction of Ukraine and to attract businesses to contribute to this process. We also intend to engage with our partner organisations to encourage them to do the same.

* * *

To support these goals and best practises for green and digital growth and competitiveness, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and the Confederation of Finnish Industries will cooperate closely on all levels. We will contribute to national and European policy processes with fact-based information and insights from the business sector, including from SMEs. We will develop shared policy proposals and organise relevant high-level meetings and workshops with EU policymakers and interested audiences.

Single Market – new complementary tool to strengthen competition enforcement

EU Commission initiative

The Commission’s Public Consultation on a New Competition Tool – Views of Confederation of Finnish Industries EK

1 About us

Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) is the leading business organisation in Finland. EK represents the entire private sector and companies of all sizes. EK has 24 member associations and approximately 16,000 member companies of which 96 % are SMEs. EK represents the interests of its members in business and employment matters.

EK is of the opinion that a strong and open European Single Market is vital for the prosperity of the EU and all the Member States. Competition policy plays an important role in ensuring the success of European companies and economy. We would like to point out the following issues regarding the proposed new competition tool.

2 General

EK supports the protection and promotion of effective competition in all markets. For the sake of European economy, effective competition and level playing field within the internal market must be safeguarded. Realistic market access must be ensured and new entrants must be able to operate in the market without the risk of being hampered by market players distorting competition. EK therefore understands and supports the Commission’s aim to address all harmful competition problems. However, EK emphasizes that the problems related to alleged structural competition problems should not be addressed hastily or in a fragmented manner. When considering instruments to address specific competition concerns, it is important to first evaluate and define thoroughly the nature and effects of the alleged problems in relevant markets. Following this assessment, the Commission’s various regulatory proposals and their effects should be considered as an ensemble. Increase in ad hoc regulation can be a threat to the coherent, fair and effective application of competition rules and thus, to the level playing field.

3 The Combined Effect of The Various Proposals Must Be Taken Into Account

EK is concerned that the Commission is currently considering several proposals linked either directly or indirectly with competition law. Thus, it is challenging to evaluate in advance the combined effect of all proposals to market operators. In addition to the proposed new competition tool, the Commission is currently evaluating the need for a new ex ante -regulatory framework regarding large online platforms as well as reviewing the market definition notice. In the field of industrial policy the recently published White Paper on Foreign Subsidies contains elements referring to competition law. In addition to the ongoing consultations, the ECN +  Directive (2019/1) promoting effective enforcement of competition law is currently being implemented in the Member States. EK emphasizes that when considering regulatory reforms, it is crucial to examine the overall impact of the various proposals on the market and companies operating therein.

4 The Current Competition Regime Works

The current competition regime has been established over decades. The ground rules of the current competition regime have proved their worth and are applicable as such in different markets. Thus, a potential reform of established competition rules or increase in regulation, must be approached with caution. In EK’s view, the structural competition concerns raised by the Commission can be largely addressed by the current rules and, if needed, by updated or new sector-specific guidelines or notices given by competent authorities. EK underlines that the growth potential of European companies should not be unduly restricted by reforms which unnecessarily tighten current regulations. However, we find it equally important to protect  especially SMEs against unfair competition.

5 Better Legal Protection Needed

In all options of the Commission’s proposal for a new competition tool, the discretion and competence of competition authorities increase significantly. To balance this, appropriate and effective legal measures are needed to protect those operators who would be subject to the use of the competition tool. In this respect, the Commission’s proposal is incomplete and needs to be clarified. We underline that the content and limits of the competition authorities’ discretion and powers should be defined in advance in a transparent and clear manner. The term ”structural competition problem” and the criteria for identifying these kinds of problems need also to be defined. In addition, all corrective measures should be proportionate and their use should be based on a thorough economic analysis. EK is especially critical of the use of structural remedies in situations which would not require a finding of an actual infringement. Structural remedies have far-reaching consequences from the companies’ point of view and an appropriate appeal process must be ensured. In practice an appeal process would delay the use of the competition tool and thus, it would not be a quick-fix to the structural competition problems. EK therefore invites the Commission to consider more thoroughly the appropriateness of structural remedies as a corrective measure.

6 Market Functioning Test Needs to be Clarified

EK welcomes the idea that the use of the competition tool would be based on a proper market functioning test. However, the proposal is unclear about the contents of the test and whether the results of the ongoing market definition consultation will be taken into account in further consideration regarding the proposed competition tool. At a general level, EK states that the test  must be realistic, transparent, predictable and take into account the characteristics of the market in question. A thorough economic analysis is an essential part of the test as well as a detailed market investigation. It is important that companies are able to evaluate in advance the scope of application of the competition tool. In this respect, it should be borne in mind that all markets are
different and it would be challenging to create a tool which would be applicable horizontally without problems.

7 Finally

EK understands that there may be a need for a new competition tool in situations where effective competition is limited, but the situation cannot, for some reason, be addressed by existing competition rules. However, it should be examined further whether there really are potential gaps in existing competition rules. The Commission’s current proposal regarding the new competition tool is not sufficiently thorough in this respect. The proposal needs to be defined more clearly as all risks to legal security, coherent and equal application must be avoided. EK therefore encourages the Commission to further explore the need for a new competition tool and to pay particular attention to at least the following issues in its further preparations:

a. The combined effects between various competition law related proposals need to be further examined;

b. It is important to maintain in force the existing, well established competition rules and principles. If amendments to existing rules are necessary, they should be made by updating current (or drafting new) authority guidelines and notices, not by legal reforms. All potential amendments should be reviewed regularly and altered/abolished with ease, if found necessary;

c. If a new competition tool is created, the tool must be simple, predictable, proportionate and applied in an equal manner. The coherent application of the tool in the internal market must be assured. The scope of application should be considered thoroughly, based on an economic analysis and market investigation;

d. The discretion and powers of the competent authority must be clearly and unambiguously described in advance;

e. The remedies must be equitable and predictable. The proposed structural remedies have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences to companies and markets and are therefore not acceptable;

f. The relationship between the competition tool and, in particular, ex ante regulation needs to be clarified. It must also be thoroughly considered whether there is a real need for both instruments and how to avoid overlaps between these instruments, other competition law related proposals and existing competition regime. Excessive regulation must be avoided, therefore special
attention should be paid to the combined effects and consequences of all proposed competition law related reforms.

Senior Advices Suvi Sasi-Gouatarbès, Business Law

EU Commission: New Competition tool

European Commission public consultation on Climate change – updating the EU emissions trading system (ETS)

Published initiative by European Commission. Further information: European Commission

Ambitious climate policy and competitiveness can be combined

We appreciate a possibility to deliver views of Finnish Industries regarding a revision of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme ETS.

EK supports a climate target of at least 55% for 2030 and a climate neutrality target for 2050 in the EU. EK sees it is fully possible to achieve a very ambitious EU target of at least 55% by 2030 and at the same time preserve or even improve the competitiveness of European industry. We see that the EU ETS is an effective tool to reduce GHG emissions in energy production, industry, and aviation, and it must remain as a main instrument for these sectors. To realize this, the coming revision of the EU ETS should include following elements:

1. A fair split between the EU ETS and effort sharing sectors to harness the full cost-efficient emissions reduction potential in these both sectors. No one can opt out of mitigating against climate change.
2. After determining a new EU ETS target based on a proper impact assessment, the Linear Reduction Factor should be adjusted accordingly instead of rebasing. The starting point should be the earliest possible which leaves enough time for carbon market and ETS-companies to adapt their actions.
3. A sufficient free allocation should be guaranteed to the carbon leakage sectors by a flexible and dynamic split between auctioning and free allocation. A use of the cross sectorial correction factor should be avoided. Indirect compensation schemes are even more important with increasing electrification. These measures are essential until the other countries put the similar climate measures in place. Recently published benchmarks, which are used to calculate free allocation, should be left as they are.
4. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAMs) seem to be instruments that are politically very risky, complicated, and costly to implement and should be considered only where other options for finding a common solution have been exhausted. The functionality and compatibility of CBAMs with the EU ETS need to be carefully assessed to avoid any disruption, especially in the options in which ETS allowances would be used as a CBAM for import goods. In any case, CBAMs needs to be complimentary for free allocation instead of replacing it totally. If the impact assessment shows that a CBAM is not a good tool to prevent carbon leakage or mitigate climate change, the EU needs to adapt its plans accordingly.
5. There are new innovations and technologies to circulate carbon to products and fuels, like carbon capture and storage/usage, CCSU. The ETS needs to be adapted to allow these new developments, and in that way to promote them.
6. Market Stability Reserve was created to deal with sudden abnormalities and dysfunctionality in carbon market. It should not be used to any other purposes, like tightening the ETS.
7. Extension of scope to other sectors needs to be assess carefully. There are multiple national and the EU-level instruments already in place in road traffic and building sector, and necessarily the ETS will not bring better results. Overlapping policies usually create inefficiencies. If cap-and-trade -system is chosen, there should be separate ETS-systems, which can be emerged to the present EU ETS after sufficient time and experience. As maritime is global business and its regulation takes place at IMO, any EU mechanism should consider a risk for carbon leakage and view merger in global systems as soon as available.
8. International offsets (article 6 of the Paris Agreement) need to be accepted in the EU ETS, as they were in the previous period of it. This would bring cost-efficient emissions reduction potential, which would help the EU to reach its climate neutrality target by 2050.
9. EU ETS revenues shall be used within the ETS sectors. Revenues should be used partly to support low carbon technology investments and partly for compensation scheme of indirect costs. There is a huge investment gap in the next decades to fulfil.

Still continuing COVID-19 crisis has influenced dramatically production rates in many ETS installations. There should be an arrangement to exclude this unpredictable impact on calculations of free allocation in the coming years.

Competitiveness of European industry should be put into a focus when revising the EU ETS directive. This can easily be done, and still it is not putting the ambitious emissions reductions under any kind of risk. Only successful industry can bring welfare and growth to Europe.

Commission Consultation on Digital Services Act Package

EU Commission initiative | Digital Services Act package: ex ante regulatory instrument of very large online platforms acting as gatekeepers

Confederation of Finnish Industries (“EK”) is the leading business organization in Finland. EK serves over 15,300 member companies, in all sizes and across all business sectors. EK thanks for the opportunity to participate in the consultation and presents the following remarks.

General Comments

• We agree that rules for the platform economy need modernization. This should be done in a sustainable way, with respect to the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of establishment.
• Europe should advance its position by strengthening the Single Market, by harmonizing legislation and leveling the playing field. Importantly, EU should also use trade policy to strengthen rule based global economy to better enable EU-based platforms to operate and grow globally, and our businesses to utilize in other regions. We should avoid even appearance of trying to get protectionist, short term wins in the upcoming regulatory efforts.
• Finnish companies have so far been mostly on the user side of platforms, and most large platforms are based outside Europe. From this starting point, our short-term interest is to increase participation and rights of user companies in the platform economy. Long term the aim is to facilitate a good environment for platform innovations and growth within and beyond Europe.
• When platforms offer their services or goods to European consumers, the same level of protection of values, consumer rights and privacy must be respected.

Digital Single Market

• Country of origin must remain the cornerstone of any future regulation. This should not change. Another key principle is the free movement of information society services. Creation of rules and regulatory coordination must happen on EU-level. Pre-moderation and censorship must be avoided (except for content that has been deemed illegal on EU-level). Freedom of speech and expression, and free movement of information must be protected as fundamental rights.
• Exemption of intermediary liability should be kept as a starting point. These rules should be harmonized and conditional. Rules for the exemption should be renewed and adjusted to correspond the activities of new actors and platforms types that have developed since the original eCommerce directive. There is a need for predictable and clear categorization of different platforms.
• Platform economy is not a monolith, as platforms operate in different sectors and with diverse business models. The key to sustainable regulation is identifying market imbalances and respond with the right remedies in proportionate manner. Regulation must aim for equal treatment of platforms, but equal does not necessarily mean identical in this context.
• Platform responsibilities need to be proportionate and connected to the nature of their activities and their position in the value chain. This requires a good categorization and new definitions of different platform operators. Some organizations are actively influencing the content (social media and algorithmic influencing of content), others have a passive role (infrastructure, hosting). It is important that an active platform can still enjoy exemption of liability if it fulfills its conditions. The Commission must further specify, by category and context, the limitations of, and conditions for any exemption.
• Rules should reflect not only the online environment, but also sectoral responsibilities should be considered. For example, when assessing trade with goods, the responsibilities and liability should be assessed based on how the responsibilities and rights are fulfilled (consumer protection, product, and producer responsibility). The sales channel alone, online or offline, should not solely determine the rights and responsibilities of the seller or the platform.

Renewal of content liability rules

• Liability rules must be redrafted so that any disincentive to content management is removed. However, this is just the minimum level. At minimum, the eCommerce directive recital 40 should be elevated as a binding rule:” the provisions of this Directive relating to liability should not preclude the development and effective operation, by the different interested parties, of technical systems of protection and identification and of technical surveillance instruments made possible by digital technology within the limits laid down by Directives 95/46/EC and 97/66/EC.”
• Regulations on unlawful content and goods that are to be removed proactively should be coordinated on EU-level. These categories must be defined clearly and precisely enough (terroristic content, child sexual abuse), to avoid difficult borderline cases. The courts in the place of establishment must have jurisdiction in the matter, and any orders must be proportional and specified.
• Harmful, but not unlawful content. Platforms must be primarily engaged on voluntary basis in finding common, flexible solutions on EU-level, that can be adopted quickly and targeted to meet emerging harmful phenomena, such as Covid-disinformation and (undue) electoral influencing.
• Content published under editorial responsibility should not be removed without a court order. To promote multifaceted media and to guarantee media freedom, it is essential that platforms cannot remove content that is published under editorial responsibility. Lawfulness of media content should always be under jurisdiction of the publisher’s country of establishment.
• Harmonized responsibilities. Tools for platforms need to be harmonised at least on a minimum level. However, it is equally important that the solutions must be based on the nature, size and position of the platform. Regulation should be technology neutral to ensure that actors can use the best possible and most suitable tools.
• Harmonized responsibilities should contain (at least, for very large platforms)o Effective, reactive measures: ”notice & action” for unlawful goods and content.
  – Commission should investigate possibilities to “extended” notice & action responsibility on marketplaces, in which clearly same or similar unlawful products should be removed, even without a separate notification on each individual case.
  – Proactive risk management system, appropriately resourced and proportionate to technological development. Systematic risk management should promote each platforms’ own rules and their enforcement. This may include proactive (but passive), on-going surveillance combined with reactive action.
  – Know-your-customer -schemes for professional users and seller responsibility management should be a key tool for risk management. At the same time, these systems should be used to increase awareness and promote capabilities to participate in e.g. producer liability schemes. It is important to balance the goals and measures in order to ensure a smooth entrance of especially SME companies to the platform and to avoid unnecessary administrative burden.
  – Platforms must have effective channel for authority contacts and cooperation. Further, collaboration channel for trusted flaggers (associations, NGOs) should be considered, primarily on voluntary basis.
• Primarily, responsibility over content and goods remains with users and sellers. However, the Commission is encouraged to explore further in which situations it would be appropriate for a marketplace to have a secondary responsibility. As a starting point, this should be a secondary, proportionate responsibility and should not become a barrier to market entry.
• Limitations and possibilities of data portability and transfer of personal data should be evaluated and developed also from the perspective of making it easier to change service providers. Additionally, so called “MyData”-operators’ legal status should be clarified.

Gatekeeper Platforms // Ex Ante Rules

• Platform to business regulation is new, and it is too early to evaluate its efficacy. Although there may be some place for “positive discrimination” when it comes to SMEs in platform ecosystem, any additional legislative measure should be supported by evidence of its necessity.
• Coherence with competition regime and need for specific ex ante rules must be thoroughly assessed going forward. The object of any regulation, gatekeeper companies or like, must be clearly defined.
• It is imperative that any new ex ante -legislation is be clear, predictable, and proportional. One such form could be a “blacklist” where certain, well-defined unnecessarily restrictive contract clauses and trade practices are prohibited or presumed unlawful (e.g. self-preferencing, “most favored nation” clauses).The objective of and means to achieve it must be clearly connected, and gatekeeper companies must have in balance effective and proper remedies.
• We strongly encourage that the current competition regime should be reviewed. Based on that analysis, primarily the existing rules enforcement and practices should be developed to capture any issues. Only if this is deemed insufficient, should a new competition tool be used for the remaining, identified, and recognized issues. Any measure should be timely and effective. As mentioned above, competition rules should be assessed for coherence with other proposals, and for their direct and indirect impact.
• Access to data and its availability, and interoperability of services should be promoted in a balanced manner, taking both data users and data producers needs in consideration. It is important to ensure that companies have necessary incentives to invest in completely new data, and in services and products based on it. Sellers´ data access on marketplaces should be advanced. Coherence of the bigger questions in data sharing and access rights should be harmonized with eventual Data Act -proposal.

Online-marketing

• Questions relating to personal data, ad targeting and cookies should be directed to be solved separately under GPDR and ePrivacy regimes.
• On “advertising walls”: already current legislation accepts that users can pay for the services with their data, and/or that they can be subjected to advertising. Advertising income is essential to business models for several services consumers and users enjoy for low or no monetary compensation. This applies to both online and built environment. Rules and best practices in advertising are best promoted by self-regulation and market driven efforts.

Authorities, transparency and access to information

• Platform economy supervision and guidance needs to be coordinated on EU level, in collaboration with platforms. A possible new authority should be capable of coordinating national and EU proposals, be agile, proactive, and an independent EU-level organization. Similarly, it is also important to secure that authorities and judiciaries have necessary expertise on platform economy matters.
• Collaboration by and between platforms and businesses and authorities should be made smoother and the platforms need to put in place effective communication channels.
• Any eventual rules on an authority´s right of access to information must be clearly connected to an identified and recognized need. Emphasis should be put on information to be used as basis of market analysis to identify possible issues and the remedies needed. Any access to information right must support flexible and fact-based guidance.
• Authorities jurisdiction, responsibilities and their limits must be set in advance, in a clear and precise manner. Right of access to information and data must be proportionate to the platforms or other subjects´ defense and refusal rights. Also, such access to information must not form a backdoor to “freeriders”, and therefore 3rd party access to such data and information needs to be limited and clearly defined in advance.

 

EU Commission web page - Digital Services Act package

New Consumer Agenda

EU Commission initiatives: General Product Safety & Consumer policy – strengthening the role of consumers in the green transition

European Commission public consultation on EU energy efficiency directive (EED) – evaluation and review

Published initiative by European Commission. Further information: European Commission.

Finnish Industries supports energy efficiency as such, and the same time we recognize a principle weakness of the EU energy efficiency target: it is expressed as absolute primary and/or final energy consumption, which doesn’t measure energy efficiency or its improvement.

Confederation of Finnish Industries EK represents the entire private sector and has 24 member associations and 16,000 member companies. We speak for employers of all sizes, from public limited companies to SMEs. Our member companies create jobs and welfare in Finland, and are responsible for 70% of exports, 70% of R&D expenditure, 2/3 of the GDP created by companies and 2/3 of the private sector jobs.

Climate change is a huge global challenge on every level in societies. Confederation of Finnish Industries strongly supports the Paris agreement and 1.5-degree policies: EU2050 climate neutrality and EU2030 target of 50-55%. We are fully committed to the implementation of necessary measures to mitigate climate change. Enterprises are in the core of this long-lasting combat by innovating, investing and offering solutions globally.

We appreciate the possibility to deliver the views of Finnish Industries regarding the road map of EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive revision.

Energy efficiency has taken its important role on the climate agenda of the EU. The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) has formed a major part of the implementation of the EU energy efficiency target 2020, and this continues during the next phase 2021 – 2030.

Finnish Industries supports energy efficiency as such, and the same time we recognize a principle weakness of the EU energy efficiency target: it is expressed as absolute primary and/or final energy consumption, which doesn’t measure energy efficiency or its improvement. Energy efficiency means the comparison of ”energy input” to the ”product output”. For industry, it is essential to allow economic growth with low carbon energy, which might mean growth of absolute energy consumption in these sectors. Therefore, energy consumption should not be capped by energy efficiency target.

We have severe concerns regarding the re-opening of all relevant EU2030 energy and climate legislation including the Energy Efficiency Directive. Member States have already created energy efficiency schemes to fulfill the requirements of mandatory savings under article 7, for instance. A full revision will slow down the proper implementation of the present legislation significantly. It would be better to focus on the smooth implementation of the regulation, and revise the EED only very minimum way.

Finally, Finland has a long history to use long-term voluntary agreements to improve energy efficiency in different sectors of society. In addition to this, these agreements have been used to fulfill requirements of the EU-legislation. The present Agreements 2017-2025 form a key element in implementing EED in Finland. It covers over 60 % of Finland’s total energy use. Voluntary energy efficiency agreements in Finland: https://energiatehokkuussopimukset2017-2025.fi/en/