No sponsorship deals for the French EU Presidency

Every six months, on 1 January and 1 July each year, an EU member state takes over the role of the EU Council Presidency. This is an important role: deciding which draft laws the Council will prioritise for scrutiny and making proposals on them, as well as representing all the other member states in negotiations with other EU institutions.

But almost every recent Presidency (with the recent exception of the German Government, July-December 2020) has accepted sponsorship for its Presidency from national or multinational businesses. This sponsorship can be for goods or services in kind (the provision of catering at meetings or events, vehicles to transport ministers and officials to meetings inside the country etc.) or it can be in the form of cash payments.

In the past, some Presidencies have offered corporations platinum or gold levels of sponsorship, although a lack of transparency meant we had no idea what benefits were conferred (Romanian Government, January-June 2019). Other Presidencies have proactively advertised for sponsors, offering “priceless exposure, prestige and enhanced brand recognition for their services and products” (Maltese Government, January-June 2017).

While corporate sponsorship is always a problem, many of the businesses that Council Presidencies have signed deals with are especially problematic.

The Portuguese Government (January-June 2021) accepted sponsorship from three companies for its Council Presidency, including the distributor of Pepsi, Lipton, and Gatorade products in Portugal (sumol + compal), and The Navigator Company, Europe’s largest paper products company which has been associated with monoculture plantations and forest fires in Portugal, and land-grabbing in Mozambique.

Meanwhile the Croatian Presidency (January-June 2020) accepted sponsorship from INA, an oil company, and automobile producers Peugeot and Citroën. For the Finnish Presidency (July-December 2019) it was BMW; and for the Romanian Presidency (January-June 2019) sponsors included Coca-Cola, Mercedes, and oil company OMV Petrom. The Austrian Presidency (July-December 2018) was sponsored by, amongst others, Microsoft and Porsche, while the Bulgarian Presidency (January-June 2018) accepted as many as 50 private sponsors! In fact this shoddy practice goes back to at least 2004.

Some of these corporations are major EU lobbyists, spending millions of euros a year influencing EU policy-making. It is absolutely clear why these corporations would wish to ingratiate themselves with Council Presidencies, member state ministers and officials, even if the full details of the benefits they receive are kept hidden from the public.

Council Presidencies receive some EU funding to cover the costs of running Council meetings, providing interpretation, and other costs. But Presidencies tend to organise additional, informal meetings, in the home country, and the costs of these are generally not covered by the EU. As a result, some governments argue that they need sponsorship as the “expenses associated with holding the Presidency are significant” (Portugal, January-June 2021).

Other governments have argued that purchasing rules required them to accept offers of sponsorship (Estonia, July-December 2017).

Meanwhile some governments see sponsorship as a chance to promote national brands to a wider (and influential) audience.

But EU member states have failed to calculate the “reputational damage” and risk of conflicts of interest which can result from such murky deals.

Outraged by the sponsorship of the Romanian Presidency by Coca-Cola in 2019, NGO foodwatch made a complaint to the European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly who agreed in her decision that these deals provoked “reputational risks” to the EU and that guidelines should be put in place.

Meanwhile, Members of the European Parliament have also expressed strong concern about the “possible reputational damage and the risk of loss of trust” in the EU, prompted by such sponsorships.

In response to the European Ombudsman’s ruling, the EU member states in the Council spent over a year discussing guidelines to regulate corporate sponsorship.

However, the final guidelines are very weak. They do not ban the practice, but instead only ask for greater transparency. According to this article, the French and Portuguese governments were among those advocating for even weaker guidelines! 

NGOs are worried that these guidelines will not do much to change the situation. The current Slovenian presidency (July-December 2021) has signed deals with minimum transparency about the benefits received by the sponsors. Sponsors continue to be promoted on the presidency website.

There have been mixed messages coming from the French government on this topic. Minister for Europe Clément Beaune has told Mediapart that: 

“There will be no private financing of the Presidency, no sponsorship. The only debate that we are opening, and which will be conducted in a transparent manner, is whether there can be material support for specific issues. Let me give you a very concrete example: a French car manufacturer may lend electric cars for an event, because this is also one of our priorities for the climate. This is the maximum we would allow ourselves, in terms of involvement of the business world.”

This might be an attempt to confuse; afterall, goods in kind from corporations are still sponsorship!

Meanwhile Politico has reported that the so-called Renaissance delegation in the European Parliament, a group of primarily French MEPs within the Renew Europe bloc which includes members from Macron’s own En Marche party, is opposed to sponsorship deals during the presidency. The MEPs have argued that the 2022 French presidency should be “attentive to the public’s perception” and that they “should not resort” to such deals.

In February 2021 foodwatch France wrote a letter to President Macron, asking him to commit to a sponsorship-free French Presidency, by neither accepting donations in money nor in kind. foodwatch is still waiting for an official response but we are keeping up the pressure via our new petition.

This is the easy bit!

President Macron and Minister Beaune should not accept any corporate / private sponsorship deals for the EU presidency. The Council should make sure that all essential costs of presidencies are funded by the EU budget, and the French Government should commit to paying a fair price for any services or products that they choose to purchase to supplement its presidency, in order to avoid any sense of sponsorship, favour, or conflict of interest.

The German Presidency (July-December 2020) opted against signing such dodgy deals. The French Government should do the same and this approach must now become the norm.

Such a policy would end, for once and for all, a long-term practice that has favoured corporate interests - and long been derided by the public and the media.