I have some ideas how Omnibus, an initiative of European comission, can be realized in a fair way.
I do not see why also right wing parties would not accept this. I am rather green, I have 25 years experience on ethics of clothing sector from an Finnish NGO standpoint.
This totally leaves the companies room for maneuver, the most clever ones would be rewarded. At least my country, Finland, many companies already work quite ethically and would support this.
Product safety is one part of quality, which is relevant for restricting foreign ultra fast fashion companies taking a big part of European markets: SheIn, Temu, Wish and others. Maybe that was the reason why the corporate responsibility directive was popular last time.
My proposal as a EU citizen for Omnibus translated:
It seems that emissions trading has been developed on the spot, when the whole system should be renewed. There should be no free emission rights and the mechanisms and concepts related to them are complicated.
Maybe some kind of scoring system is needed instead of an auction? Now the slack has been taken up, so to speak, and in the future achieving the targets will require harder work than before. The time is ripe for new openings.
Sectors of the economy pollute different amounts. Emission targets should be defined separately for each sector or actually for each product group, depending on how much they pollute. The carbon footprint of different products has already been calculated, starting with tomatoes.
Emission targets, corporate social and environmental responsibility and quality could be set by scoring and the scores could be the same regardless of the country in which the companies are located and the production takes place. Least developed countries could get easier access to the EU market through scoring, but they would also have to pay a little for emission rights.
I think that nobody should get emission allowances for free. Now they are distributed freely.
The scores could work like the Nordic Swan Ecolabel, whose criteria include environmental responsibility, social responsibility and quality. There are over 15,000 Swan-labelled products and services on the Finnish market.
The criteria already exist. The Swan Ecolabel awards the most responsible products in their product group. That could also be a good operating principle for distributing emission allowances. The Swan Ecolabel criteria are set so that only 20–30 percent of the products or services in the product group can pass them. In a way, the market mechanism ensures that companies push each other to be more ethical and the Swan Ecolabel then accepts the strictest ones.
Emission allowances could be scored in a similar way, with companies competing for emission allowances and the cleverest would be rewarded.
The environmental responsibility, social responsibility and quality of companies could be baked into this.
That could be exactly the idea behind the Commission’s new Omnibus project.
Background:
This proposal would tackle taxes for companies inside EU and customs for companies outside EU. I call it fair, both should address corporate social and environmental responsibility, carbon trade and quality.
It would be fair also for example for clothing factories in India. They might have a couple options in sustainability transformation, which otherwise causes unemployment: they can raise the quality of products and/or ask for more money for the products.
Regarding small and medium sized businesses (inside EU market) family companies are naturally less responsible or more responsible than enlisted companies at least when speaking about transparency. The families do with their companies what they want opposite to enlisted corporations who need to report and attract also new owners.
This idea is quite flexible and comprehensive. The scores would be given politically. That makes it flexible. The criteria behind the scores would be outlined as the Ecolable does, by public hearings. It leaves the companies room for maneuver, the most clever ones would be rewarded, but all the companies should pay something always.
Products produced by forced labour and child labour should not enter the EU markets. There would still be the 3. pillar on Ruggie principles, the possibility for raising lawsuits against companies who do not deliver. Food products would be left outside, if desired.
The companies should know what is happening in their supply chains anyway.
This would be one kind of green protectionism. Protectionism is gaining ground again not least because Donald Trump is striving to it. There are many signs of protectionism rising also outside USA.
– Outi Moilala
Independent researcher