15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/1

Rapporteur:

Alain COHEUR

1.1.

In the view of the EESC, given the digital revolution in the field of health, it is vital to maintain and promote a health insurance system which serves the needs of everyone, and is solidarity-based, inclusive and non-discriminatory. Inclusion and fair access for all to good quality health services (digital or otherwise) and commitment to these are in fact prerequisites for universal health coverage.

1.2.

In line with previous opinions (1), the EESC believes that equal access to healthcare, one of the main objectives of health policies, can benefit from digital support provided certain conditions are met:

1.3.

The rapid expansion of telemedicine, connected devices and nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and the cognitive sciences (NBIC) must not result in patients being seen as mere connected bodies which can be analysed, monitored and overseen remotely by an all-powerful IT programme. The technical development of health in fact encourages the opposite: it places interpersonal relationships and social ties back at the centre of medical practice and care.

1.4.

The EESC flags up the challenge of hyper-empowerment, with people being encouraged to manage their own health status, along with hyper-individualisation. With predictive medicine on the one hand and connected devices on the other, knowledge of individual health risks and follow-up is moving forward, promoting policies more closely tailored to people’s needs. The knowledge that has emerged of these risks and of the differences between individuals raises important ethical questions as regards maintaining a solidarity-based approach to insurance coverage.

2.1.

The EESC would observe that if they want to successfully exploit the digital revolution, efficient health insurance systems must:

2.2.

The roll-out of digitisation must never jeopardise the principles of redistribution and pooling of health and social risks, the real cornerstones of collective solidarity.

2.3.

The EESC highlights the need to:

3.1.

The rapid expansion of digitisation is driving change in the health sector which is unprecedented in both scale and pace. With the proliferation of connected devices and mobile health applications, the exploitation of big data, the arrival of NBIC and the abundant supply of new health services, digitisation is completely transforming our health system.

3.2.

The advantages of digital innovation in health go far beyond the technical or scientific realm to offer a whole host of innovative uses. These new forms of usage go hand in hand with wide-scale social innovation, paving the way for new responses to health and social needs.

3.3.

This has a direct bearing, in what is a complex ecosystem, on relationships between:

3.4.

In relation to people’s attitude towards their own health, everybody will become more aware of the importance of their health and of how to take responsibility for it. In the past, because of the difficulty in gaining access to health information and the resulting state of ignorance, health risks created great uncertainty for everyone. Now, people will have a whole range of devices (connected devices, for example) that can assess their health status, enabling them to make the necessary lifestyle changes.

3.5.

Easy access to sources of information will mean that everyone becomes an agent of their own health able to identify, compare and choose the health service that best suits their needs. ‘E-patients’ are contributing to predictive medicine, producing health data and playing an active role in their own health and that of others. Informed consent is the centrepiece in this respect, combined with data protection, integrated governance and data usage.

3.6.

These new technologies encourage a focus on prevention rather than treatment of disease. They will also make it possible to introduce more effective treatments which are less intrusive and more tailored to the genetic and biological characteristics of each individual patient. They will also make information available in real time, something that improves treatment.

3.7.

Health professionals will be encouraged to develop new skills and new areas of specialisation, which will bear fruit in a number of ways: a way of interacting with patients that is based more on reciprocal trust; gradual mastery of digital tools as a result of training courses; a new way of using technology in providing care; and a new collaborative, shared approach thanks to interoperable systems.

3.8.

Social dialogue must keep pace with these changes and ensure that additional training is available for health professionals.

3.9.

As regards health insurance schemes, access to top of the range, high quality health services, both public and private, is something to which every person aspires. This will have a marked impact on health insurance, as the challenge for the future will be to devise personalised responses and pathways before risks arise, based on the principles of risk-pooling, while still maintaining the traditional purpose of health insurance, which is to ensure that people who fall ill have access to healthcare services.

3.10.

Digitally-generated medical innovation has the potential to bring about profound changes in health insurance. This new dynamic is producing tailored medicine and treatment, drawing on two sources of information:

(b)	e-health mechanisms: these include connected devices which fall under the heading of ‘quantified self’ (self-measuring) and enable people to be aware of and improve their health status.

A number of questions and observations therefore need to be addressed.

4.1.

The digital transformation gives people the option to take action on their health status, despite being aware that there are still some barriers to access. The vastly increased access to knowledge, infrastructure and innovative, personalised healthcare services could enable everyone to become an agent of their own health but also — in their capacity of helper, producer of information and data provider — to help improve the health of others.

4.2.

This tailored approach comprises what is known as ‘4P medicine’:

participatory: medical data are produced and followed up on by the patients themselves, assisted by a growing number of connected devices. The relationship between patients and doctors (who are no longer the only source of medical knowledge) is changing. The patient is becoming a ‘patient-actor’;

preventive: patients who systematically collect information on their health are increasingly aware of the need to stay healthy, which opens the door to healthcare with a stronger focus on prevention;

personalised: the constant flood of increasingly specific and varied personal data also lays the groundwork for more personalised healthcare;

predictive: lastly technological progress, making it possible, for example, to digitise people’s complete genome, is opening the door to healthcare which aims to be increasingly predictive.

4.3.

4.3.1.

Health literacy refers to people’s ability to gain access to, understand and use information in ways which promote and maintain good health. This implies achieving a level of personal knowledge, skills and confidence enabling people to take action to improve individual and community health by changing lifestyles and living conditions.

4.3.2.

Digitisation tends to heighten social health inequalities by strengthening the relationship of cause and effect between people’s health status and their cognitive abilities (for instance, the ability to locate and understand reliable information on health issues) and financial capacity (such as being able to afford the best equipment). These inequalities are accentuated in older people, the most vulnerable people and people living in areas with poor coverage by digital operators.

4.3.3.

To use healthcare applications, people must have a level of skills enabling them to access, understand, assess and use health information in order to make decisions on a day to day basis with regard to healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion. However, inadequate literacy exposes people to considerable risks in the area of health, with consequences for healthy life expectancy, premature death, quality of life and costs for both individuals and society.

4.3.4.

It is important, however, not to overlook the digital divide that is emerging between health and paramedical professionals. This could be resolved by strengthening the education system by means of a programme providing training on the new interaction between healthcare providers and patients brought about by digitisation.

4.4.1.

Quantification in the field of health encourages individual micromanagement of health and hyper-responsibility, to the detriment of a more collective understanding. It makes individuals responsible for their own good or bad behaviour with regard to health, and can deflect attention from the environmental or social and economic causes of public health problems.

4.4.2.

Failure to anticipate the impact of digitisation on personalisation, growing social health inequalities and increased health commercialisation can all jeopardise our solidarity-based, universal health insurance models.

5.1.1.

Digitisation provides the tools to break down the barriers in the healthcare system by making it easier for hospitals, independent surgeries, health networks and home care services to pool information. Swift and reliable mechanisms for transmitting the information gathered by various parties are a prerequisite for coordinating the treatment and overall care of the patient. They make it much easier to organise continuity of treatment and multidisciplinary care. Availability, ready access, exchange and pooling of data facilitates decisions on medical matters. The digitised sharing of data between healthcare professionals provides direct added value in terms of quality of care.

5.1.2.

Electronic medical records benefit patients by contributing to the coordination and quality of care thanks to data sharing by authorised parties, provided that the patients have given prior approval, with the exception of emergencies and cases of force majeure. The rules for digitised electronic medical records cover all the specific guarantees given to patients with regard to digital data, in terms of protection of privacy and access to these data. Confidentiality of medical and administrative records must be guaranteed completely.

5.1.3.

Electronic medical records avoid errors arising from illegible documents (prescriptions, referrals for medical examinations), facilitate access to medicinal databases and make prescriptions safer because they are based on the patient’s characteristics. Digitising medical practice helps limit the risk of error and reduce iatrogenic risk.

5.1.4.

The reminder and alarm functions provided by the digitisation of medical records help improve prevention measures (such as vaccination and screening), monitoring of knowledge of medicines and of people suffering from chronic diseases as well as improve the level of care given to patients and make the healthcare provider more effective when it comes to making a diagnosis and prescribing treatment.

5.1.5.

What is more, with the digitisation of information on a patient helping improve the process of making decisions on medical matters, in the coming years we will see a drastic change in medical practice. Every single medical diagnostic will require expert systems or tools involving artificial intelligence. This revolution is the fruit of the parallel development of genomics, neuroscience and connected devices (NBIC), meaning that from now on only machines will be able to process the influx of data.

5.2.1.

Technological progress is permitting and strengthening the growth of telemedicine, which is ushering in new medical and paramedical practices. Telemedicine has the following advantages: better health coverage for remote areas and fewer trips for people in a fragile state of health, remote monitoring of patients to avoid hospitalisation, remote sharing of expertise, educational benefits in the form of telemonitoring and multidisciplinary case discussions thanks to remote consultations and remote medical expertise.

5.2.2.

Telemedicine, digitised professional communication, paperless documents, pooling skills that are geographically scattered and sharing intellectual or medical and technical resources must save time for healthcare professionals which can then be spent with patients talking to them one on one, and considerably improve the relationship with them.

6.1.1.

The gradual digitisation of our health systems has certainly helped improve both the administrative and financial management of each person’s insurability (more room, more time, more consumables, increased productivity, easier, safer archiving, advantages for the environment) and has made for speedier reimbursement of healthcare providers and hospitals, while stepping up checks and reducing the risk of error when invoicing the services provided.

6.1.2.

Although they do not directly lead to improvements in the quality of care, paperless administrative forms have reduced the time needed to send forms and have streamlined administrative procedures. A paperless circuit removes barriers to the practice of medicine, enabling doctors to focus more on the art of healing and less on the inevitable red tape.

6.1.2.1.

These days, big data are generated when all the data of all patients/insured persons are compiled, including data generated by health applications. Big data relies on the capacity to analyse all the data from a multitude of sources. This presupposes the use of tools to establish links between data and extract useful information from unstructured data in an automatic and cost-efficient way.

6.1.3.

Through applications, data are no longer stored at doctors’ surgeries, hospitals or health insurance companies, but rather on devices or cloud-based platforms, with a parent company which may no longer necessarily be located in the country in which a person is registered for health insurance, or even in Europe.

6.1.4.

Interoperability is a cornerstone at European level (with the digital single market) and national level alike. An ‘interoperability framework for health information systems’ has to be designed and implemented. A repository of interoperability of this kind compiles the principles and standards that must be complied with so as to exchange health data in a completely secure environment and link all the e-health stakeholders.

6.2.1.

The ownership and protection of data are key for individuals/patients and represent a fundamental right to be upheld. The individual/patient is entitled to use his data as he wishes. This depends on free, informed and permanent consent by individuals to the collecting and use of their data. In addition, recognition must be granted to an effective right to portability and the development of Blue Button (4)-type solutions to provide access to people’s medical history.

6.2.2.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to enter into force on 25 May 2018 governs this subject at European level. The World Medical Association’s declaration on ethical considerations with regard to health databases and biobanks (Declaration of Taipei) must also be taken into account.

6.3.1.

Digitisation is moving forward in the insurance sector. Initially restricted to value propositions for information and comparison (such as tools for comparison or online subscription) or linked to paperless medical and administrative forms, it will go far beyond these transaction-based links in the chain. The new methods for quantification, popularly known as ‘big data’, will transform the insurance sector’s economic model, and new products will be rolled out.

6.3.2.

This turning point inevitably has a strong impact on:

6.3.3.

As technology and health applications advance, everyone will be able to ‘objectify’ their physical activity, diet, interaction with other people, and even their set of health determinants.

6.3.4.

Using big data in respect of individuals could imply the shift from a model of coverage and pooling of risks to a model of coverage of behaviour and individualisation of insurance services, leading to hyper-individualisation. While profit-based private insurance companies seem able to find their place fairly easily, the change could be more difficult for mutual companies and public health insurance stakeholders, whose fundamental purpose would come under strain.

6.3.5.

Health insurance managers in turn are entering a phase of vulnerability caused by these changes as they are at the crossroads of an entire multidimensional ecosystem made up of industrialists, doctors, governments, regulators, investors and patients.

6.3.6.

Health insurance managers have to cope with a highly static environment due to very strict regulation of sensitive health data, the complex management and financing of the medical and hospital sector, a fairly rigid and unresponsive value chain (membership, collection of contributions, settlement of services provided), increasingly stringent regulation of insurance products and sometimes even corporatism on the part of the medical professions.

6.3.7.

However, health insurance managers do not all have or no longer all have the same financial capacity and the capital needed for this is increasingly seen as a barrier to their development. The digital giants’ economic power is opening doors for them, enabling them to invest directly in what they see as a market.

6.3.8.

Despite improved knowledge of individual health risks, it is essential that we continue to base our healthcare systems on collective and solidarity-based insurance. Our health insurance systems have been most effective in establishing a link between individual membership and collective protection against all health risks.

6.4.1.

Currently, there are few examples of funding the costs (reimbursement) for the use of mobile applications in a person’s care pathway. One of the major obstacles at present is in fact the lack of appropriate reimbursement models integrating technological advances.

6.4.2.

There is the standard model of state intervention where reimbursement is in the hands of the national institutions and authorities which lay down rules as to which mobile health services are eligible for reimbursement (5). However, there are also initiatives taken by stakeholders in the health insurance systems, including mutual insurance companies (6).

6.4.3.

There are also innovative reimbursement systems such as incentive and prevention programmes with a focus on prevention more than medication.

6.5.1.

Future challenges will have a major impact on public and private organisations in the field of compulsory health insurance (such as mutual insurance companies). These will be to:

6.5.2.

Mutual health insurance companies, the forerunners of health insurance, can now aim to guarantee permanent, personalised support for each of their members. Whether in the products/services they offer or the personalised support they provide as their members seek to achieve wellbeing or continue along their care pathway, mutual health insurance companies must be able to be present, regardless of the channel of communication, in their members’ lives and provide a response which meets their members’ needs.

7.1.

Nonetheless, all the abovementioned aspects, which bear witness to the complexity of digital health challenges, and the arrival of the new internet players will result in overwhelming economic competition for our health insurance systems.

7.2.

This disruption has been made possible partly by the emergence of sensors, which are now affordable and technically reliable, but also and chiefly by the capacity to centralise and analyse data through a smartphone or web interface. A mobile application ecosystem has therefore emerged, centred around the principle of objectives, community and ‘gamification’. It now enables mobile environment builders to set standards for the management of health data via their dedicated service (7).

7.3.

There is reason to fear that the GAFAMA (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba) (8) and others yet to emerge will in the future take control of this new form of medicine, which is increasingly reliant on information technologies and mapping. Such technologies are after all the bread and butter of digital economy leaders, which use them to take over ecosystems in all sectors.

7.4.

The strength of these platforms is that they base their development model on the mass supply of products or services connected to the public, giving them access to plentiful data which are monetised. The monetisation of data enables them to offer a host of free services guaranteeing high user flows and fuelling a virtuous circle where everyone tries to keep the consumer locked into an ecosystem which is as closed as possible. With virtually zero marginal costs for providing services, the internet’s economic model naturally favours the biggest players which seize the lion’s share of the value created and thus have vast investment capacity.

7.5.

The worry is that only the GAFAMA are in a position to capitalise on these data which are distributed free of charge, by cross-referencing them with all the data that they also collect on individual behaviour. Faced with the digital giants — present-day and future — it is essential from a legal and ethical point of view for European citizens, governments and institutions (particularly social protection institutions) alike to retain their sovereignty in the identification, collection and use of health data.

7.6.

The added value of this information, particularly in the area of health, is thus captured and controlled by these platforms and no longer by health system producers. The information will then be made available to applicants who will be able to use it.

7.7.

The protection of data through the ‘5 Vs’ (Volume, Velocity, Variety, Veracity, Values) has an economic value requiring an ongoing regulatory framework that is linked to the ecosystem as a whole (‘multi-stakeholders’) in order to prevent exploitation for purely commercial ends.

15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/11

Rapporteur:

Denis MEYNENT

1.1

The Committee notes that the REFIT (1) programme’s primary aim is to improve the quality and effectiveness of EU legislation and to draft simple, understandable and coherent rules, without calling into question the already-established strategic aims of the EU’s policies or becoming detrimental to the protection of citizens, consumers, workers, social dialogue or the environment (2). European legislation is an essential factor in integration. When proportionate it constitutes an important guarantee of protection, promotion of European legislation and legal certainty for all European stakeholders and citizens (3).

1.2

Despite the progress achieved so far, in particular as a result of the work of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the Committee would like the European impact assessment ecosystem to continue to evolve, so as to strengthen its quality and encourage the involvement of organised civil society in designing and implementing legislation.

1.3

It is therefore particularly necessary that:

1.4

The Committee advocates a qualitative approach which operates on an equal footing with quantitative analysis, taking into account research into the expected benefits of the legislation.

1.5

The Committee calls on the Commission to remain vigilant so as to ensure that the reduction of administrative and regulatory burdens does not have a negative effect on the effectiveness and overall quality of EU policies, especially in the social, environmental and consumer protection spheres and with regard to SMEs and micro-enterprises.

1.6

Finally, with regard to the impact assessment, the EESC hopes:

2.1

The IA takes the form of an ongoing and critical analysis of the effects, both positive and negative, of planned EU regulation on the economy, society and the environment. Fifteen years after its introduction, the IA has become one of the cornerstones of the EU’s Better Regulation Agenda.

2.2

The IA system comes into play at a very early stage in the political cycle. An IA is carried out ahead of any new initiative that is likely to have economic, environmental and social impacts. An evaluation and fitness check of existing EU legislation and policies are also carried out regularly. The ‘inception impact assessment’ outlines the main thrust of the impact analysis, surveying the different types of option (from status quo to full harmonisation). The impact assessment itself then takes place. The draft assessment is reviewed by the RSB. Once legislation has been implemented, an evaluation assesses its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and European added value. The RSB then reviews the main evaluations of the EU legislation. ‘Better law-making’ is therefore present at every stage of the procedure. It is increasingly open to stakeholders at every stage, via various consultation mechanisms.

2.3

The Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making (IIA) of May 2015 (4) reflects the common position of the three institutions with regard to the IA. In the light of the progress made, the Committee has identified two key lessons:

2.4

Established in May 2015, the RSB has taken almost two years to become fully operational. It has greater authority and wider responsibilities, including examining the quality of draft IAs, health checks and major evaluations of existing EU legislation (5). The professionalisation of the RSB has made it less likely that social and environmental impacts will be overlooked. The RSB reviewed 60 IAs in 2016, 25 of which (42 %) initially received a negative review, requiring their authors to resubmit their IAs to the committee. Currently, the EESC confines its opinions to the impact assessment. In the future, it might usefully consider how the legislative proposal reflects the IA and takes it into account.

3.1.1

The IA is based on an array of criteria and tests, relating in particular to impacts in the following areas:

3.1.2

In principle, the Commission’s impact assessments are integrated in nature, covering the most significant and relevant economic, social and environmental impacts of each case.

3.1.3

Over the years, the Council and occasionally the EP have requested additional criteria:

3.1.4

These various criteria occasionally force the Commission to strike a balance between the various aims or concerns by: listing the criteria in order of priority; deciding that such and such a criterion must take precedence over the others as the key criterion/a; arbitrating policy choices in the face of competing criteria:

3.1.5

The study on the Commission’s IA system, carried out in 2007 by The Evaluation Partnership (TEP) (6), a UK private consultant, had reported a number of shortcomings, in particular regarding social and environmental protection. According to TEP, the poor quality of the IAs was due to errors in timing, the mechanisms used to monitor the quality of assessments, and the lack of monitoring and assistance available for IAs (training, coordination, incomplete or missing data, etc.). In 2010, the Court of Auditors found that ‘in practice, the Commission’s IA work was asymmetric between the three pillars and between costs and benefits’ (7).

3.1.6

With this in mind, the Committee reiterates its request for Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (8) to be used systematically as a basis for evaluation work (9).

3.2.1

A ‘toolbox’ was developed by the commission in its Communication (11) of 19 May 2015 on better law-making. It provides a detailed guide on the IA via 59 instruments (tools, criteria, tests, etc.) intended to help not only the Commission but also the competent authorities of the Member States.

3.2.2

Two of the 59 tools proposed are of particular interest to the EESC. These are tools 7 (requirements for social partner initiatives) and 25 (employment, working conditions, income distribution and inequality).

3.2.3

In reality, these tools seem more like a checklist of questions to be asked concerning initiatives that are likely to have an impact on social or employment issues. The questions are general, neutral and uninspiring. For example, the questions asked in tool 25 include:

3.2.4

These questions often amount to a description of a series of potential positive and negative impacts. They provide little incentive to develop more detailed analyses as regards the quality or the volume of employment in particular.

3.2.5

In addition, it would appear that in certain cases, the social and environmental criteria have not been included in a systematic and in-depth way in the Commission’s IAs for several years (12), even if the Commission, for its part, states that it considers social impacts in 70 % of its IAs and environmental impacts in 45 % of cases.

3.3.1

The Directorates-General (DGs) are responsible for the analytical methods and models on which the Commission’s services are based when establishing their legislative proposals. In most cases, the Directorates-General carry out impact assessments internally on the basis of the IA guidelines (13) and toolbox. In some cases, the DG concerned has recourse to the services of an external consultant, selected on the basis of an open and transparent procedure, in order to investigate further a particular point in the IA.

3.3.2

Of the 59 tools that make up the toolbox, only two or three appear capable of guiding decision-making with regard to the quality of employment, social protection, levels of remuneration, etc. This is clearly an area in which the toolbox needs to be strengthened.

3.4.1.1

The REFIT programme aims to identify unnecessary burdens, inconsistencies and ineffective measures and to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. In 2013, as part of REFIT, the entire EU legislative stock was mapped.

3.4.1.2

The EU Competitiveness Council has called on the Commission to draw up and set out reduction targets in particularly burdensome areas, especially for SMEs (14).

3.4.1.3

The Competitiveness Council of 26 May 2016 also welcomed ‘the Commission’s commitment in the IIA to further quantification of its simplification and administrative burdens reduction efforts, to present an annual burden survey and, where possible, to quantify the regulatory burden reduction or savings potential of individual proposals or legal acts’ (15).

3.4.2

The Committee calls on the Commission to remain vigilant so as to ensure that reductions in the regulatory burden do not affect the effectiveness or the overall quality of EU policies, especially as regards social, environmental, employment or territorial cohesion aspects as well as SMEs and micro-enterprises.

4.1

Despite the progress that has already been made, the European ecosystem as regards IAs needs to develop further. We propose seven areas of improvement in order to strengthen the quality of the RIA and encourage the involvement of organised civil society in designing and implementing legislation.

4.2.1

The Committee requests that the Commission indicate more clearly the methodology used to calculate the impact of its initiative, the scope of the study and its possible limitations (area, target groups, etc.).

4.2.2

If sections or significant subsections of the IA are outsourced, the Committee requests that the winning bidder’s name be published.

4.2.3

It is important that the specifications clearly describe alternative scenarios and demonstrate the consequences of all the possible options, including:

4.2.4

It is important that priority should ultimately be given to a proposal which combines these various dimensions to the best possible effect, bearing in mind the provisions of Article 3(3) TEU (16) and Article 9 TFEU (17).

4.2.5

In order to help the co-legislators draft their amendments, the IAs must provide alternative courses of action which, for example, provide for scenarios that are more favourable to employment, social and environmental protection, territorial cohesion and consumer policy.

4.3.1

Transparency is an essential prerequisite for good governance. A register (18) of the Commission’s documents presents the list of impact assessments and the corresponding opinions of the RSB. However, this register is little-known to the general public and is only available in English.

4.3.2

The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to take steps to raise awareness about this site in collaboration with intermediary organisations, include the views of stakeholders and any relevant studies, particularly IA summaries, and provide translations in the other EU languages.

4.4.1

The EESC calls for the quantitative or monetary approach to operate on an equal footing with a qualitative approach, which focuses on the human dimension of proximity, gender equality and contact with what is happening on the ground. The reasons for investing in a qualitative approach include the following:

4.4.2

IAs should always favour a cost-benefit approach. The reduction in the number of diseases and the levels of noise pollution, toxic emissions and accidents can never be determined solely on the basis of quantitative data. Fairer competition, fair trade and better working conditions cannot be determined on the basis of quantitative analyses. It is crucial that the Commission prioritises qualitative analysis, in the interest of all stakeholders.

4.5.1

Although the IIA concluded that each institution could develop its own methodology, the Committee proposes that the EP, the Council and the Commission should work together to carry out a thorough review of this issue, one that is also open to the Committee.

4.5.2

It is not so much a question of proposing a uniform methodology as agreeing in advance on a convergent methodological matrix, specifically with regard to the basic methodological elements, such as defining the scope of the study, the research strategy, the choice of tools, the options to prioritise, etc.

4.5.3

The long-term aim is to promote dialogue with regard to the Commission’s choices of methodology so as to provide assistance to institutions carrying out amendments.

4.5.4

As a result, the Committee’s proposals in this regard might resonate more favourably with co-legislators.

4.6.1

The EESC has a unit dedicated to the qualitative ex-post evaluation of some targeted European legislation. In the future, this unit could support the efforts of Committee members and also provide analysis of some IAs, review methodological issues and provide an opinion on whether economic, social, environmental or territorial elements should be taken into account. It would also facilitate the development of any advisory opinions by the EESC relating to draft legislation prepared by the same impact assessments.

4.6.2

A regular dialogue between the EESC and the European Commission should be set up with regard to consultations and impact assessments.

4.7.1

Consideration should be given to informal but regular cooperation between the RSB and the Committee.

4.7.2

As well as informal exchanges of views and ad hoc cooperation, it is important to promote dynamic cooperation with the Committee in two areas:

4.7.3

For its part, the Committee will, where appropriate, draw up a summary of its main recommendations on the scope of the impact assessment itself and will provide any other data or information that might be relevant to the IA work of the Commission and the associated review by the ERC.

4.7.4

The Committee will also provide an ex-post evaluation on the implementation and application of the legislation.

15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/18

Rapporteur:

Petru Sorin DANDEA

1.1

The aggressive tax planning carried out by certain companies, along with tax avoidance, causes significant losses of revenue for Member States’ budgets. The Committee calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to combat this extremely damaging phenomenon by introducing the necessary tax rules as soon as possible.

1.2

The Committee is aware of the fact that efforts to combat aggressive tax planning can only be successful if they are global in scale, and so it recommends that the Commission and the Member States continue and step up negotiations in the framework of international institutions, such as the OECD and G20, to develop effective rules for combating tax avoidance.

1.3

The EESC welcomes the Council decision approving the criteria proposed by the Commission for evaluating jurisdictions known to be tax havens. The Committee believes that this will be an important step in the fight against aggressive tax planning only insofar as the list is backed up by sanctions on those jurisdictions as well as on the companies that continue to engage in aggressive tax planning in their financial operations. These sanctions could include denying those companies access to public funds.

1.4

The Committee calls on the Member States to avoid further promoting tax competition by using numerous tax rulings that are not justified by the economic substance of the transactions, but constitute an unjustified advantage to certain companies in relation to their competitors.

1.5

The EESC believes that the harmonisation and simplification of tax rules should be a priority for the Member States. Furthermore, the complete elimination of tax barriers should go hand in hand with these harmonisation efforts.

1.6

The shift of the tax burden onto capital in the labour market brought about by globalisation has led to increased labour costs and the deepening of inequalities. The EESC recommends that, when carrying out tax reforms, Member States shift the tax burden from labour to harmful financial or environmental practices.

1.7

The EESC proposes that the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) be extended across the single market and even beyond. This would create a more predictable, business-friendly tax system, reducing compliance costs for cross-border investment.

1.8

The EESC calls for the formula for apportioning the taxable profit, as part of the CCCTB consolidation, to be based as far as possible on the principle of taxing profits where they are generated. In this way, the consensus required for approving this system would be easier to achieve. If the recent European anti-tax avoidance measures do not lead to any result and the CCCTB does not achieve its objectives, a minimum corporate tax rate could be considered in order to avoid a race to the bottom.

1.9

Regarding the EU’s own budgetary resources, the EESC recommends that Member States to look for solutions to implement the recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources. Increasing the EU’s own resources will allow for stronger support for development and cohesion policies in the Member States.

1.10

The single currency is one of the EU’s most remarkable achievements. Nonetheless, it has not achieved its full potential owing to the fragmentation of the European tax system. The EESC reiterates its proposal to introduce a ‘tax snake’, along the lines of the ‘currency snake’ (1) which operated in the run-up to the introduction of the single currency. The EESC considers that this could initially cover the three types of tax revenue that generate 90 % of government revenue in the Member States: VAT, income tax and social security contributions.

1.11

The EESC feels that efforts to harmonise the rules (2) on establishing the tax base for the main taxes might be better supported by the introduction of qualified majority voting in the field of direct taxation. Progress in advancing tax policies could be made more quickly, and this would benefit the internal market and generate significant growth potential, given that a harmonised system would significantly reduce compliance costs for companies and create a more predictable tax system in the EU.

2.1

Taxation plays a fundamental role in the fight for social justice and a fair economy. Thus, tax also has a social, gender and intergenerational dimension. Governments collect revenue in order to have sufficient and sustainable funding for social security and protection systems and for public services that benefit individuals and businesses. At the same time, taxation is a key instrument for redistributing income and wealth more fairly in society, thereby reducing social inequalities.

2.2

Tax fraud and tax evasion, along with tax avoidance through aggressive tax planning, which is used by certain corporations with cross-border activities, and black market activities are fuelling the growing inequalities generated by the economic crisis and austerity programmes, and constitute a major threat. Even the most conservative estimation of ensuing financial losses suffered by the Member States as a result of base erosion and profit shifting are measured in hundreds of billion euros.

2.3

Globalisation has increased the speed and volume of capital movements. The trend of moving capital to areas in which it can have a higher leverage rate, due to more favourable tax rules, has caused problems for governments which have been obliged to take more account of these international movements of capital in designing their fiscal policies than of their own domestic economic and social priorities.

2.4

In recent years, the tax competition pursued by Member States (3) has resulted in a permanent loss of tax revenue for funding both essential public services and public investment, which is one of the main drivers of growth. While in the short term, lowering taxation may bring some benefits to the States that pursue tax competition in this way, in the long term, the reduction in government revenues has proven to be harmful for economic growth in general (4). Tax competition is encouraged by Member States by means of numerous exemptions on consumption or income tax as well as tax rulings favouring multinational corporations.

2.5

The regulatory fragmentation in tax matters that currently pertains in the EU (with practically every Member State having its own tax system) makes the Member States, in general, more vulnerable to aggressive tax planning. Consequently, the loss of revenue to national budgets may be significant. Moreover, excessive tax fragmentation is also undermining the single market and reducing the EU’s competitiveness in relation to its main global competitors. Harmonisation of tax policies at EU level could increase government revenues in all Member States, on the one hand, and, on the other, could create a more business-friendly environment by simplifying the rules and thus reducing compliance costs. Harmonisation would eliminate loopholes and mismatches both within and between Member States’ tax systems.

2.6

The general public has been outraged by the scandals that have emerged in recent years relating to tax avoidance by very wealthy individuals and multinational corporations. The Panama Papers, LuxLeaks and Apple scandals have revealed financial transactions amounting to tens or even hundreds of billions of euros, specifically intended to avoid paying taxes in the Member States.

2.7

The elimination of exemptions on consumption and income taxes and better harmonisation of tax bases would significantly increase government revenue and encourage investment in the single market. It is well known that, owing to high compliance costs, small and medium-sized enterprises have limited access and opportunities as regards developing cross-border investment.

2.8

Against this backdrop, the European Commission, at the request of the Council, has been putting forward a series of legislative proposals aimed at achieving both a significant reduction in tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning and the avoidance of double taxation for companies in the EU. However, given that direct taxation remains an exclusive competence of the Member States, there has been limited progress, with some of the measures proposed by the Commission failing to find a consensus in the Council.

2.9

The most important measures put forward by the European Commission to combat tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning include: improving the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) between tax administrations, the introduction of a general anti-abuse clause in rules relating to companies, establishing a reporting requirement regarding profits made and the related taxes paid on a country-by-country basis (CBCR) for multinational corporations, and the re-launch of the project aimed at establishing a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB). Furthermore, many measures have been introduced to reduce VAT fraud and the 15 % loss of revenue (VAT gap).

2.10

The Commission has also taken an active part in the negotiations conducted at OECD level, which led, in 2015, to the signing of the BEPS agreement. This is a standard aimed at introducing more stringent tax rules in cross-border operations, and is aimed, in particular, at combating aggressive tax planning. The Member States are currently implementing the measures proposed by the standard and have also undertaken further measures in this field.

3.1.1

The aggressive tax planning carried out by certain businesses causes significant losses of revenue for Member States’ budgets. Given that it erodes the tax base and thus obliges Member States to increase taxes, the Committee believes that aggressive tax planning is an inherently immoral practice that significantly affects the functioning of the internal market and distorts the fairness of tax systems vis-à-vis taxpayers. Thus, in many cases, individuals and small businesses, in absolute terms, end up paying more in taxes than big businesses. The Committee calls on the Member States to step up efforts to introduce rules as soon as possible aimed at combating this extremely damaging phenomenon.

3.1.2

The OECD negotiations that led to the drawing-up of the package of measures contained in the BEPS standard involved more than one hundred countries. Efforts to combat tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning cannot fully succeed unless they are globally accepted standards. The EESC recommends that the Commission and the Member States continue and step up negotiations in the framework of international institutions to develop effective and properly implemented rules for combating tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning.

3.1.3

The Council has approved the criteria proposed by the Commission for drawing up the list of jurisdictions known to be tax havens. The EESC believes that this will be an important step in the fight against aggressive tax planning only insofar as the list is backed up by sanctions on those jurisdictions as well as on the companies that continue to engage in aggressive tax planning in their financial operations. These sanctions could include denying those companies access to public funds, including public procurement.

3.1.4

Tax rulings were included within the scope of the AEOI at the initiative of the Commission in 2015. Member States should use this system to detect tax rulings that distort the market by offering certain companies exemptions from paying taxes which might constitute unjustified State aid. The Committee calls on the Member States to avoid further promoting tax competition by using numerous tax rulings that are not justified by the economic substance of the transactions, but constitute an unjustified advantage to these corporations in relation to their competitors.

3.2.1

The fragmentation of the tax system in the EU affects the single market, restricting opportunities for cross-border investment, particularly for SMEs. The EESC believes that the harmonisation and simplification of tax rules should be a priority for the Member States. Furthermore, the complete elimination of tax barriers should go hand in hand with these harmonisation efforts.

3.2.2

Globalisation has resulted in a shift of the tax burden onto capital in the labour market. This has led to increased labour costs and the deepening of inequalities. The EESC recommends shifting the tax burden from labour to harmful financial or environmental practices.

3.2.3

The Commission has recently re-launched its proposal for a common consolidated tax base (CCCTB) for large corporations with a turnover of more than EUR 750 million. The Commission proposal may lead to harmonisation of the taxation on corporate income in the EU. If this system proves effective, leading to job creation and increased investment as a result of better collection of government revenue, as well as creating a more predictable, business-friendly tax system, the EESC proposes extending it EU-wide and even beyond.

3.2.4

The EESC considers that the formula for apportioning the taxable profit, as part of the CCCTB consolidation, should be based as far as possible on the principle of taxing profits where they are generated. In this way, the consensus required for approving this system would be easier to achieve. If the recent European anti-tax avoidance measures do not lead to any result and the CCCTB does not achieve its objectives, a minimum corporate tax rate could be considered in order to avoid a race to the bottom.

3.2.5

The EESC believes that increasing the EU’s own resources will allow for stronger support for development and cohesion policies in the Member States. That is why the EESC recommends to the Member States to seek out solutions for implementing the recommendations made by the High Level Group on the Own Resources..

3.2.6

As part of efforts to harmonise tax systems within the EU, the EESC reiterates its proposal to introduce a ‘tax snake’, along the lines of the ‘currency snake’ which operated in the run-up to the introduction of the single currency. Although this could be seen by policymakers as rather difficult to achieve, due to the complexity of the tax systems in the Member States, the EESC considers that this could initially cover the three types of tax revenue that generate 90 % of government revenue in the Member States: VAT, income tax and social security contributions.

3.2.7

When it comes to direct taxation, the Member States have control, in accordance with the EU Treaty. The EESC feels that efforts to harmonise the rules on establishing the tax base for the main taxes might be better supported by the introduction of qualified majority voting in the field of direct taxation. Progress in advancing tax policies could be made more quickly, and this would benefit the internal market and generate significant growth potential, given that a harmonised system would significantly reduce compliance costs for businesses and create a more predictable tax system in the EU.

3.2.8

The existence of the euro zone, an area with a single currency which in future will include the majority of the Member States, means that tax systems and welfare systems may need to be harmonised. Experts on monetary policy consider that the fragmentation of the tax systems in the euro zone exacerbated the effects of the last economic and financial crisis. Maintaining the status quo, with a single currency operating in an economic area using a number of different tax systems, will make the single market still more fragile. Harmonising the tax base for the main types of taxes will reduce compliance costs for companies, and may generate additional resources which they can use for investment, research and innovation.

3.2.9

Introducing a differentiated profit system beneficial to companies which reinvest their profit will support growth and job creation in the EU. Similarly, eliminating any form of tax exemption offered to companies which distribute the bulk of their profit through dividends could be one means of boosting economic growth.

3.2.10

Tax harmonisation in the euro zone, based on the principle of convergence and appropriate taxation, will create the resources needed to reinvigorate public investment, thereby paving the way for private investment as well.

15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/23

Rapporteur:

Mário SOARES

Co-rapporteur:

Josep PUXEU ROCAMORA

1.1

For many centuries, the Latin American and Caribbean region — now grouped together in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) — has shared Europe’s principles and values, meaning that they have a common outlook on the world. Thus, forming a strengthened EU-CELAC bloc with a common strategy to tackle global challenges will give it a stronger voice on the international stage.

1.2

Europe and its Member States are the main investor and most significant partner for cooperation with LAC; political, economic, social, cultural and historical ties have been forged over the centuries, which are also reflected in the biennial Summit of Heads of State or Government, a parliamentary assembly, various types of agreement and, above all, an extensive social network.

1.3

New global challenges mean that we have to strengthen this bloc and — above all — develop a new strategy: one that goes beyond traditional conventions and grand declarations and asserts itself as a strong and decisive voice on the international scene. In the new geopolitical context, the Latin American region is cementing its status as a strategic priority of EU foreign policy.

1.4

The EESC is pleased to emphasise that the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee is currently discussing a resolution on the same subject, which recognises that CELAC is a key partner for the EU and that the priorities of the EU’s external action with CELAC should be to enhance political dialogue and cooperation in the field of migration, climate change, renewable energy, the fight against organised crime and the strengthening of political, cultural and socio-economic relations.

1.4.1

The EESC hopes that the upcoming EU-CELAC Heads of State Summit on 26-27 October will be commensurate with the challenges currently facing humanity and the planet and will develop a strategy to strengthen the strategic, political, economic, social and cultural links between the two regions.

1.4.2

It encourages progress towards a comprehensive framework agreement between the European Union and CELAC, to include principles for action in terms of political dialogue, cooperation and sustainable development. This could form the basis for geopolitical action on a global scale and would strengthen the voice of our regions on the international stage.

1.4.3

The EESC calls on all political leaders in the EU and Latin America and the Caribbean to acknowledge and appreciate the value of civil society involvement. It is therefore important that:

1.4.4

The EESC reaffirms that civil society’s priority objectives include consolidating democracy, sustainable human development, justice and social cohesion; protecting natural resources and the environment; fully upholding human rights and labour standards; the future of decent work; and the fight against inequality.

1.4.5

It believes that part of its mission is to be actively involved throughout the entire process of building a world where people can, in all their diversity, live in peace through dialogue. A world where all countries and all peoples are able to find their own path towards development and to build on their culture to bring about a democratic, inclusive and prosperous society. The EESC wishes to lay claim to its part in this process.

2.1

Today’s world is facing diverse challenges that are very difficult to solve: the acceleration of climate change; the proliferation of armed conflict, which then gives rise to thousands of refugees; the return of nationalism and a unilateral approach to conflict resolution; even the return of the nuclear threat.

2.2

Trade has developed across the world in such a way that while from a purely political point of view it could potentially lead to a better balance between the different parts of the world, it in fact maintains — and in some cases has aggravated — the gap between rich and poor, including within a single region or country.

2.3

Respect for human rights and international UN or ILO standards is under threat in many parts of the world, and the rights of women and children and ethnic, religious and cultural minorities continue to be violated; moreover, fundamental freedoms are still not fully upheld, which threatens people’s security and quality of life.

2.4

The agreement on climate change reached in Paris enjoyed wide support — even from countries such as the United States and China, traditionally reluctant to commit themselves in this regard. Today, the agreement is threatened by the new US administration, which has announced its intention to withdraw from the agreement; this puts the Clean Power Plan on hold, legislation that was launched in 2015 to reduce energy sector emissions and to increase the generation of renewable energy.

2.5

After a period in which the world was seemingly beginning to reach some kind of balance, the rampant financial crisis starting in 2007 brought home — even in developed countries — the social consequences of unregulated markets. Far from dying down, conflicts have worsened, and countries’ and regions’ differing interests have diverged even more.

2.6

In Europe, the re-emergence of stark differences affecting cooperation between the EU and Russia and between the EU and Turkey (a country that is still engaged in negotiations to join the Union) demonstrates that this delicate balance has been upset, or is at serious risk.

2.7

The election of the new US administration, and in particular its unclear and seemingly less friendly attitude towards the EU, will further complicate the international context. The suspension of the TTIP negotiations, the warning made to the United Nations that its actions will not always follow the UN’s decision-making criteria, the non-ratification of the TPP, moves to change migration policies, and the challenging of established practices between allied countries are creating uncertainty and contributing to international instability.

2.8

Negotiated and realistic commitments are the only comprehensive solution to this and other threats and challenges. But these commitments must also be binding in order to constitute genuine solutions, which will inevitably be more complex and must be multilateral.

3.1

In the EESC’s view, for Europe to continue to play a leading role in the current complex international context, it needs partners and allies who are not only able to share in development and trade but who also have the same fundamental values and principles. This can and must constitute the European Union’s added value.

3.2

Hitherto, Europe has had a Latin America and the Caribbean strategy that is based, inter alia, on the following elements:

3.3

The Summit of Heads of State or Government of Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and later CELAC and the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (EuroLat), the parliamentary institution of the Bi-regional Strategic Partnership, are the political manifestations of this strategy.

3.4

At global level, Europe has made strong commitments to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the goals of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreements. The EU has committed itself to:

3.5

In this respect, a robust EU-CELAC bloc would have more weight on the international stage and would play a key role in preserving these values, which both the EU and CELAC, as a whole, share — thus it seems that the moment has come to ask whether this strategy, which has certainly brought achievements and valuable results, is enough to tackle the global challenges faced by both regions.

3.6

The EESC believes that it is essential to have a serious interregional debate: one that openly points out not only the successes that have been achieved but also the continuing weaknesses or limitations; draws lessons from past measures; responds to the challenges of the present and upholds shared values and principles; and thereby forges a relationship based on renewed and broader cooperation and legitimacy for the future.

4.1

The international situation provides a new opportunity to forge stronger and more effective LAC-Europe links, which it would be worth enshrining in the future EU-Mercosur agreement (2). This agreement represents a major challenge for the EU in that — if adopted — the entire Latin American region, with the exception of Bolivia and Venezuela, would enter into a close political and economic relationship with the EU. The renegotiation of the agreement with Mexico is also of the utmost importance for that country, while Europe has the possibility of increasing its presence due to the forecast decrease in Mexico-US trade.

4.2

The EU’s relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean must demonstrate its usefulness for everyone — for both European countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries and, above all, for these countries’ citizens.

4.3

Productive investment in both regions is a key element in the interaction between the political, social, environmental and economic aspects of development. The EU and its Member States continue to be the main investor in the region. The Latin American and Caribbean countries are the EU’s second largest trading partner and, taken together, CELAC and the European Union make up one third of UN Member States and around 25 % of global GDP.

4.4

A deeper partnership between Latin America and the European Union would enable economic growth to be accelerated as well as progress in terms of structural change towards sectors making intensive use of knowledge; it would also enable poverty to be reduced, social inclusion fostered and the environment protected.

All of this can be achieved by:

4.5

This would benefit economic and social well-being in both regions, which would certainly have an effect on job creation, e.g. via:

4.6

There are challenges for the EU and CELAC, but they also have opportunities for positive development with regard to issues that are key for both regions and that would be significantly enhanced by means of joint action, such as:

4.7

The EESC believes that the goal of interactions between public measures and the private sector should be to promote economic development, improve business collaboration, and realise financial investments for growth; underlines the need to combat the informal economy, underdevelopment and SMEs’ poor competitiveness; and calls for bi-regional mobility to be facilitated and improved, ensuring mutual consistency of labour rights and encouraging the coordination of social security systems.

4.8

For the EESC, it is essential to overcome piecemeal views of relations between the two regions and to treat the economy, human rights and sustainable development as an indivisible whole. Cooperation and mutual support are vital if we wish to make progress on an action plan and a joint agenda to enable us to tackle the most important challenges of our world, such as poverty, climate change and armed conflicts.

5.1

The value, role and active participation of both regions’ organised civil society, and the fact that they exchange experiences, share projects, and actively participate in measures that are decided, must be acknowledged, recognised and taken on board as key elements in a new form of strategic relationship.

5.2

At the same time, the EESC is of the view that civil society in the two regions has an opportunity and a major challenge, as bi-regional relations need a renewed dimension — one that does not undermine or neglect past achievements but moves forward with a keener political and strategic sense.

5.3.1

While the role of civil society has been increasingly recognised in recent years as being an essential element in strengthening a bi-regional strategy, in reality civil society continues to suffer from limitations that prevent it from participating more effectively and efficiently, in particular because:

5.4.1

Overcoming these limitations requires an action plan and agenda that:

5.5

The EESC emphasises that for negotiations of any kind between the EU and Latin America and the Caribbean to be successful, it is essential to formalise a structured form of dialogue with organised civil society so as to ensure that it can effectively participate at every stage of the negotiations, during implementation and when results are being evaluated. In this context, the EESC warmly welcomes the launch of the EU-Chile Joint Consultative Committee, which the EESC, alongside Chilean civil society organisations, helped to set up.

5.6

The EESC maintains that the priority objectives of relations between European and Latin American civil society are to strengthen democracy, sustainable human development, and justice and social cohesion; protect natural resources and the environment; fully uphold human rights; and ensure decent work is upheld.

5.7

European, Latin American and Caribbean organised civil society’s lack of structured and broad access to information has been repeatedly highlighted as being a key problem in the monitoring of EU relations with Latin America and the Caribbean and one of the biggest obstacles preventing civil society from drawing up proposals in good time. The EESC reaffirms that access to information must be one of the priority areas with regard to relations between the two regions, meaning that it is essential to put in place clear rules and procedures governing access to and dissemination of this information.

5.8

If the parties to the agreements truly value the involvement of civil society, then the necessary and sufficient material resources must be arranged from the outset for all participatory mechanisms set out in the agreements so that they can fulfil their tasks.

5.9

The EESC welcomes the fact that the EU-LAC Foundation has become an international organisation, which can be an important element in reinvigorating the bi-regional partnership, and reiterates its proposal to EU and CELAC heads of state, made in its Santiago Declaration in 2012, that the Foundation’s work programme should include a strong component of genuine and effective cooperation with institutions representing both continents’ civil society organisations.

5.10

So as to ensure that the policies and measures that are decided are robust and relevant, and that the civil societies involved take ownership of them, the EESC urges that these policies and measures improve the consistency and positive impact of the relationship between the two regions.

6.1

The Summit of Heads of State or Government of the European Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (EU-CELAC) will take place in El Salvador on 26 and 27 October 2017. Against a backdrop of cooling relations between the United States and Latin America, the EESC believes that this summit should focus on strengthening strategic, political, economic, social and cultural links between the EU and Latin America and the Caribbean.

6.2

The EESC urges policy-makers from both regions to take increasingly effective action and play an increasingly effective role to encourage protection of the planet, combat climate change, preserve biodiversity and sustainable development, promote human well-being, contribute to eradicating poverty, ensure social and territorial cohesion, promote high-quality education and health for all, gender equality and local cultures, defend peace, value the role of global institutions, and sustain multilateralism.

6.3

The EESC believes part of its mission to be to actively participate throughout the entire process of building a world where people can, in all their diversity, live in peace through dialogue. A world where all countries and all peoples are able to find their own path towards development and to build on their culture to bring about a democratic, inclusive and prosperous society. The EESC wishes to lay claim to its part in this process.

6.4

The EESC calls on all political leaders in the EU and Latin America and the Caribbean to acknowledge and value the participation of civil society so as to involve the largest possible number of their citizens in the decision-making process. Without wishing to exclude anyone, the EESC believes that more structured and effective participation is enabled by institutional and institutionalised participation.

6.5

Promoting decent work should become a priority for the European Union’s policy relating to cooperation with Latin America and the Caribbean; in this context, specific commitments should be made to respect and comply with the fundamental ILO conventions and all EU-LAC policies and negotiations should include mechanisms to check compliance, with social and trade union participation.

6.6

In the current geopolitical context, the EESC believes that association agreements, trade agreements, political dialogue agreements and strategic partnerships continue to be important tools, but they are no longer the only possible ones. At present, it is crucial that those who share cultural, historical and political values and visions are aware of the need to form a strategic bloc that is able to exert influence on the international stage. Agreements must be the result of this awareness, not a way of attaining it.

6.7

The EESC calls for progress to be made towards a comprehensive framework agreement between the European Union and CELAC that includes principles for action in the areas of political dialogue, cooperation and sustainable and economic development. This could lay the groundwork for geopolitical action on a global scale by defining how to act if the principles and values that we share come under threat.

6.8

The EESC believes that it is absolutely essential to recognise that the involvement of organised civil society contributes to creating a global awareness that enables, promotes and privileges global solutions for peace, sustainable development, fair trade and the well-being of all peoples and regions.

15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/30

Rapporteur:

Franca SALIS-MADINIER

Co-rapporteur:

Jukka AHTELA

1.1

At this time of major digital, environmental and demographic change, which is in turn bringing about far-reaching changes for workers, employers and their relations as social partners, the EESC believes that the need to acknowledge the role that social dialogue and collective bargaining play at all levels is now greater than ever, as is the need to strengthen that role.

1.2

The Committee believes that the changes taking place are of such magnitude that they require collective, broad and inclusive debate. The method for carrying out such a debate is rooted in social dialogue at all levels and in the participation of all the stakeholders in a constant quest for new, relevant responses, putting forward suggestions and creating the world of tomorrow.

1.3

The social partners, as players in this process, need to be clear about the acceleration and scale of these changes; to resolve to limit their adverse effects; and to be firm in their belief that the sharing economy can lead to positive developments and opportunities that should be grasped.

1.4

The EESC is convinced that the key objectives and principles of social dialogue hold true in this new world of work. Social dialogue — which includes informing, consulting and involving workers — must be rooted in mutual trust and respect for national practices.

1.5

In several of its opinions, the Committee has reiterated the key part played by social dialogue in the new forms of work (1). Social dialogue must play a leading role at all relevant levels and must fully respect the social partners’ autonomy.

1.6

In the EESC’s view, it is not yet possible to predict the full range of opportunities and challenges that the digital economy will bring. The role of social and civic dialogue is not to oppose these transitions, but rather to steer them in the best way possible for reaping the full range of benefits they can bring for growth, the promotion of innovation and skills, good jobs and the sustainable, solidarity-based financing of social protection.

1.7

As the EESC has previously pointed out, trade union representation and collective bargaining for platform workers are being called into question (2). We therefore need to remove the obstacles preventing people from asserting the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the ILO conventions (3).

1.8

Digitalisation defies traditional methods of management and administration; it calls for participative management, and for collective rules to be drawn up. This new form of management must give employees the opportunity to express their opinions; it must also enable them to participate in solving problems and sharing techniques for strengthening common benchmarks and professional expertise and for optimising human resources deployed in innovation and company development processes.

1.9

At the same time, the EESC recognises that the new forms of work, accompanied by disintermediation and continuous, rapid change, mean that the structure of and arrangements for social dialogue need to be adapted.

1.10

The EESC recommends respecting the autonomy of the social partners who, through collective bargaining, have undertaken to find innovative forms of social dialogue and responses tailored to the needs of employers and workers, both in traditional enterprises and in the digital economy.

1.11

In this opinion, the EESC describes some initial experiences, innovative responses and solutions, trade-union practices and collective bargaining outcomes that tackle the challenges thrown up by these changes.

1.12

The EESC notes that digitalisation and its effects on work need to be a priority at European level, as well as for all Member States, and must become a central component of social dialogue. The EESC recommends:

1.13

The far-reaching changes that the world of work is undergoing also raise the question of greater cooperation between the social partners and other civil society organisations. The EESC has already declared that a clear distinction has to be made between social dialogue and civil dialogue; but while they cannot be conflated, they should also not be completely divorced from one another (4). Furthermore, the initiatives mentioned in this opinion include broad consultation at government level that brings other civil society stakeholders into broader debates on the overall impact of digitalisation.

2.1

As in 1985 — when the social partners and social dialogue were given legitimacy and allocated an important role in the European project — the EESC recommends strengthening the role of the social partners at all levels at this time of major change, recognising the role of civil society representatives.

2.2

New forms of fragmented work, and the rise in the number of atypical workers, mean that these workers need to be involved by informing and consulting them to a greater extent, as well as by adjusting collective rights, working time arrangements and social rights (5).

3.1

According to Eurobarometer (6), 17 % of Europeans use digital platforms as customers and workers. They are predominantly well qualified and live in urban areas. In this group only 5 % of workers regularly offer services or work on platforms, and 18 % do so sporadically. Work on platforms as a primary occupation is therefore still rare, but is becoming more common. Meanwhile, digitalisation and artificial intelligence are having a much more significant impact on work in traditional businesses; without neglecting work on platforms, social dialogue should focus on these developments, which are having a profound effect on the nature and organisation of work.

3.2

The EESC calls for the contractual status of ‘crowd-workers’ and other new forms of employment relationship, as well as intermediaries’ obligations, to be examined when negotiating working conditions. Clarifications are needed as regards these forms of work and the applicable tax and social security systems.

3.3

The EESC recommends that the European Commission, the OECD and the ILO work together with the social partners with a view to developing suitable provisions on decent working conditions and protection for online workers and workers under other new forms of employment relationship. The EESC believes that defining an EU-level approach would be beneficial, whilst noting that most measures will need to be carried out at national, sectoral or workplace level (7).

3.4

The EESC is particularly concerned by the fact that trade union representation and the right to collective bargaining for digital workers is being called into question. Competition rules might in this way be applied to self-employed workers, who are in fact in a similar situation to dependent employees. It is therefore necessary to assess the status of the workers concerned on a case by case basis and, in the case of employed status, the obstacles tending to exclude such workers from collective bargaining and trade union representation should be removed (8).

4.1

The EESC considers that the major themes of social dialogue in the age of digitalisation include questions relating to employment, career transitions, lifelong learning (9), particularly vocational training, social protection and the sustainability of its financing (10), working conditions and pay, and income security.

5.1

It is difficult to pinpoint the qualitative and quantitative change that work will undergo following the digital transition, especially as the effects may vary in different sectors and occupations.

5.2

Nonetheless, it is up to the social partners to anticipate these changes so as to tailor workers’ skills to the new professions (11). Lifelong learning, tailoring such training to digital skills, is a priority. Some Member States have introduced minimum entitlements to paid educational leave. It should be examined whether this is a useful instrument for employers and employees alike to gear skills to needs and whether European measures are needed to introduce this possibility across the EU (12).

6.1

The way social security systems function needs to be reviewed and, if necessary, adapted, as they were designed for continuously-salaried careers, which are less and less frequently the norm. Over a period of 10 years, the number of Europeans working part-time has increased by 11 million (the figure now stands at 44 million) and the number of workers on temporary contracts has risen by more than 3 million (now a total of 22 million) (13).

6.2

At European and national level, financial and fiscal policy decisions need to be made to ensure that our social protection systems are sustainable; these issues are a matter for social dialogue.

7.1

In one of its opinions (14), the EESC concluded that legal changes were needed to the very definition of work and to the structural distinction between employment and self-employment, so as not to leave digital workers unprotected. The EESC calls for the statutes and relations in the digital economy to be clarified in order to ensure that all workers can enjoy sufficient rights and social protection. The social partners have a key role to play to ensure that this process leads to a positive, fair and sustainable result, and that any grey areas in rights and protection are addressed.

8.1

An increase in the number of teleworkers and mobile workers means that the social partners have to find new ways and innovative methods to reach these workers, who are no longer physically present in offices.

9.1

While ICT and digitalisation offer some workers the opportunity of autonomy in terms of time management and workplace (their evaluation being based more on their results rather than time present), others find that information and communication technologies mean that their work is subject to a greater degree of monitoring and control.

9.2

The social partners must use social dialogue to tackle these challenges so as to protect the collective interests of all these workers and guarantee high quality work.

10.1

While the increasingly intensive use of ICT can provide some workers with opportunities for autonomy and a better work-life balance, it can also be a health risk if poorly managed. The increase in the number of workers suffering from stress and burnout is both worrying and costly: something for which social dialogue needs to find solutions. The Commission has issued a proposal for a Directive on parents’ and carers’ work-life balance as part of the package of measures accompanying the European Pillar of Social Rights (16).

10.2

ICT (17) can also blur the boundaries between work and private life. Wide-ranging dialogue aimed at limiting workers’ being reachable at all times, and training people to use ICT effectively, are vital solutions, as are new rights, such as the right to switch off recently recognised in France.

11.1

The trend towards more autonomy that digitalisation offers some workers represents a challenge for businesses, their constituent bodies and their governance, as well as for management methods and businesses’ traditional hierarchies. These changes mean that more forms of social dialogue, information and consultation, and strong worker participation are needed. Workers can provide their own input into innovation and development processes that are beneficial to their company and its stakeholders.

11.2

Given this state of affairs, the EESC believes that there is a need for workers to have more of an influence on — and participate more in — decision-making bodies. It is essential to have workers’ (and their trade unions’) trust and contributions at all relevant levels and in all relevant bodies — be it at local level and/or on management or supervisory boards. It is vital that they participate in anticipating, managing and taking decisions on the changes that are taking place in order to address the effects of digital change and create an attitude and culture geared to innovation. According to a Eurofound report, most company managers are convinced that it is a competitive advantage for employees to be involved in the choices made by firms (18).

11.3

The EESC believes that the new forms of work must take into account appropriate ways to consult and inform workers. The social partners need to find the most appropriate solutions at national level and within companies to ensure that workers are involved.

12.1

In some Member States, governments have launched dialogue on digitalisation issues and challenges. Trade unions, employers, researchers and civil society representatives have all been involved.

12.2

The EESC here sets out the initiatives taken in some countries in anticipation of new forms of work. These initiatives bring together social partners and civil society players, including youth groups and anti-poverty organisations.

12.2.1

Germany has taken the lead, publishing a green paper in 2015 entitled ‘Work 4.0 — Rethinking work’, paving the way for dialogue with the social partners and other stakeholders on the implementation of digital matters.

12.2.2

In France, a National Digital Council has been set up, and the ‘Mettling Report’ was published in 2015. Trade unions, employers and the public were involved in drafting this report, which set out a number of recommendations that firms are obliged to implement.

12.2.3

Similar government initiatives, involving the social partners, academia and civil society representatives, have also been rolled out in Austria, Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Hungary and Denmark.

13.1

Experiments carried out in many Member States — and set out below in a non-exhaustive list — demonstrate the evolution of trade-union measures and the acquisition of new rights thanks to collective bargaining on new forms of work.

13.2

Two new rights have been recognised in France: the first, included in the labour law of August 2016, is the right to switch off, which tackles the risks of work without borders or limits. This right ensures that workers who use ICT can avoid having to be permanently connected.

13.3

Social dialogue at company level enacts the right to switch off by means of collective or sectoral agreements. Teleworking and mobile work agreements have also been negotiated in a number of companies. An agreement on digitalisation — the first in Europe — was also signed in 2016 between social partners within a telecommunications group. In particular, it provides for the creation of a committee with the social partners that is to anticipate the new skills employees will need due to digital developments.

13.4

The second new right obtained in France is the personal activity account. All workers (employees, self-employed workers or ‘bogus’ self-employed workers, as well as platform workers) are eligible and can use it to build up rights to training, social welfare, unemployment benefits and retirement in a single transferable account.

13.5

Moreover, innovative trade union practices are starting to emerge: some unions have created a platform for self-employed people, providing new services such as health insurance, welfare guarantees and legal services tailored to their occupation.

13.6

In June 2016, the German trade union IG Metall and the Swedish trade union Unionen entered into a partnership to monitor and evaluate work on digital platforms with a view to anticipating the changes generated by the new economy and developing digital tools for trade union communication, so as to organise self-employed workers and ‘crowd-workers’. It is possible to access this trade union platform internationally; it is aimed at workers across national borders. In Germany, a sectoral agreement on mobile work has also been reached, which takes into account new working arrangements: teleworking, mobile working and working from home.

13.7

In some companies in Italy, trade unions have negotiated agreements for unorthodox workers, which set out social security and sickness coverage guarantees (previously reserved for employees in traditional jobs) as well as tailored legal assistance.

13.8

In Denmark and in many other EU countries, as well as the United States, new forms of digital work have been widely criticised by trade unions because they get around the labour regulations applying to traditional sectors and avoid taxation. The transport company Uber — that emblem of platform work — has been at the heart of discussions on the digital economy. The challenge was to gain recognition that Uber drivers are dependent workers, and thereby to require Uber to declare them, pay employer’s contributions and comply with labour regulations (19). Trade unions aim to negotiate minimum wages on behalf of platform workers, as well as transparency regarding the criteria that govern the algorithms and determine their ratings and assessment, and decent working conditions (20).

13.9

In the Netherlands, workers on flexible contracts and ‘self-employed’ workers have also started to unionise.

13.10

European social dialogue in the metallurgy sector has resulted in a joint position on the impact of digitalisation and action to be taken, signed by the IndustriALL trade union and CEEMET, an employers’ organisation (21).

13.11

At European level, BusinessEurope, UNI Europa, CEEP and UEAPME have signed a joint declaration on the effects of digitalisation in the world of work and highlighted the major challenges facing EU leaders and the social partners (22).

15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/36

Rapporteur:

Ulrich SAMM

Co-rapporteur:

Indrė VAREIKYTĖ

1.1

Digitalisation will change our working life dramatically. We have to act now to ensure that the appropriate skills are available for the future, so that Europe remains competitive and is able to create new businesses and new jobs, people can remain integrated into the labour market throughout their entire working lives, and well-being for all is assured. The speed at which digitalisation and automation happens also involves social risks which we have to deal with through the coordinated efforts of all stakeholders: decision makers, the social partners and civil society.

1.2

Due to the availability of very high-capacity broadband networks, the future of work will see a growing number of atypical work forms, such as (multiple) part-time work, work with multiple contractors and so-called ‘crowdworking’ with workers offering their skills on internet platforms as a network of highly qualified and specialised professionals. The EESC emphasises that in view of this growth of atypical work, the provision of social security and the avoidance of poverty (also among the elderly) must be given high priority.

1.3

The EESC welcomes certain national initiatives from trade unions and civil society providing guidance to crowdworkers, which have in some cases already led to the development of a Code of Conduct for crowdworking platforms. The EESC would like to see this development taken up by the Commission and applied at European scale. Increasing information asymmetry between consumers and businesses will have to be dealt with by methods such as, for example, the ethical codes for liberal professions.

1.4

Work is also changing in traditional companies. In particular, knowledge-intensive work can take place in increasingly unconstrained conditions, which, on one hand, corresponds to a desire for flexibility expressed by many employees, but, on the other, can lead to increased intensification and burdens. An increasingly multi-local working environment requires new social competencies.

1.5

Automation and robots will have a significant impact on the future of work. They can replace monotonous, heavy or dangerous work and a new generation of so-called ‘collaborative robots’ can become physical partners for workers, and can be particularly helpful for people with physical disabilities. While present-day robots are mainly replacing blue-collar work, white-collar professions will also be affected when artificial intelligence is applied. Automation and robots have the potential to stabilise the economy in an ageing society.

1.6

A significant number of jobs will be affected by the introduction of more robots into the workplace. We can expect that, as in the past, more wealth in society will lead to growth and new jobs in specific areas such as culture, art, tourism, social work, education, communication, entertainment or health care. However, this development may manifest faster than in the past, which may lead to distortions for which social dialogue will be needed at an early stage.

1.7

Lifelong learning, particularly related to digital skills, will be a necessity for everyone, requiring more and more flexibility from individuals, companies and all education and training systems. Beyond formal education, much more time will have to be devoted to professional training and informal learning, which should be supported as much as possible by an EU-wide harmonised system of certificates and standards. In this connection, moreover, the EESC has already put forward considerations on European measures in the field of training leave.

1.8

Basic education should include more interactive digital learning. Digital skills, however, can go beyond programming to include becoming aware of what lies behind a ‘mouse click’: understanding the system, the interconnections, the social impact and privacy and security issues.

1.9

Future skills should match societal needs and the demands of the labour market. This can only be achieved through close cooperation between the social partners and public and private education systems. More volatile markets will give rise to challenges, as businesses and workers will have to adapt quickly enough. This, in particular, is a challenge for professional training systems.

1.10

Public and private organisations (schools, universities, chambers of commerce, trade unions, training centres) have to provide professional training in new technologies, especially for those who do not have the capacity to organise training themselves, like SMEs, the liberal professions and the self-employed.

1.11

Long-term developments, which may lead to new and unpredictable challenges where today’s skills can quickly become obsolete, can best be dealt with by general education. The better the general education, the better the preparation for the unknown. A broad general education is also the best basis for learning how to single out reliable information on the internet and for becoming less vulnerable to fake news.

1.12

The EESC welcomes the various relevant initiatives of the Commission related to lifelong learning, digital skills and jobs, the new skills agenda and Erasmus+. The good practice repository set up by the Commission has the potential to serve as a facilitator for an EU-wide debate that should lead to the adoption of guidelines and standards based on best practices. Organised civil society can and will play an important role here.

2.1

Digital technology is playing an increasingly important role in our economy and social life. It will be key for the development of new economic models (collaborative, functional, circular, sharing). In addition, globalisation, migration, the ageing society, climate change and the need for sustainable solutions will have a major impact on the social environment in general, and on our working life in particular. The new forms of work which are currently in evolution are addressed in this exploratory opinion by focussing on the skills needed, including digital skills, and on new policies and changing roles and responsibilities, while a parallel exploratory EESC opinion deals with new forms of work and the role and opportunities of social partners and other civil society organisations (1).

2.2

In order for Europe to remain competitive, to be able to create new businesses and new jobs and to provide well-being for all, the development of appropriate skills must be given priority. The speed with which digitalisation and automation happens also creates fear among the population, in particular among workers, and uncertainties in businesses given the great challenges involved. Our society must deal with these challenges and adapt to the changes as a matter of urgency, through coordinated efforts by all stakeholders in public policy and civil society. Europe can be a global leader, with a modern development based on its own values.

2.3

The EESC is convinced that the future of work should be a key priority within the debates on the European Pillar of Social Rights  (2). Specific issues have already been addressed in EESC opinions on the Digital Single Market and SMEs (3); the New Skills Agenda (4); the European Gigabit Society (5); Enhancing digital literacy, e-skills and e-inclusion (6); Industry 4.0 and digital transformation (7); as well as in the EESC information report on the mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme (8).

3.1

Very high-capacity broadband networks will open the door to the use of a large variety of new applications and environments, such as the ‘Internet of Things’, automation, cloud computing, the exploration of big data or new business models based on a service-dominant logic. This trend will be advantageous in that it can bring types of professional specialisation that are currently the exclusive preserve of major conurbations to areas that are remote and/or difficult to access due to their terrain. Tools such as remote medical consultation, monitoring and reporting mean that it will be possible to monitor vulnerable people directly in their homes. It will even be possible for small centres to have access to highly specialised professionals. It is important to recognise that the way of working will be changed for almost all groups and professions and that predictions about developments over the next decades comprise significant uncertainties. We have to realise that we need to be prepared for the unknown.

3.2

In the future, there will be growing differentiation in the organisation of companies. On the one hand, we have the traditional companies with permanent staff and which have to offer an attractive working environment, the so-called ‘caring companies’ (9). On the other hand, we have a growing number of companies with a ‘fluid’ organisation, which are also increasingly based on so-called ‘crowdworkers’. This allows them to react very flexibly to changes in the markets. Crowdworkers are a network of highly qualified and specialised professionals, although to some extent there may also be less qualified collaborators who offer their skills on Internet platforms. A variety of mixed forms of company organisations is also expected to develop. For example, caring companies can outsource a part of their business to crowdworkers. Increasing information asymmetry between consumers and businesses will have to be dealt with by methods such as, for example, the ethical codes for liberal professions.

3.3

Crowdworkers enjoy their freedom with flexible working hours and work location. They offer their skills on the market — sometimes for micro tasks — for the best price. The lack of social security in this kind of self-employment (‘digital nomads’), however, entails considerable risks. The tendency in our society to shift from ‘normal’ employment to ‘atypical’ work — which, apart from crowdworking, includes (multiple) part-time work and work with multiple contractors — is a serious challenge for our social security systems  (10). The four components of flexicurity (11) have to be implemented for this new type of work as well: 1) flexible and reliable contractual arrangements, 2) comprehensive life-long learning, 3) active labour market policies, and 4) modern social security systems.

3.4

Work is also changing in traditional companies with permanent staff. It is now relatively unimportant where knowledge-intensive tasks and work — such as engineering tasks or research and development projects — are conducted. This type of work can take place in increasingly unconstrained conditions, which, on one hand, corresponds to a desire for flexibility expressed by many employees, but, on the other, can lead to increased intensification and burdens. Attaining the desired work-life balance has become one of the essential criteria for choosing an employer. Our society is heading towards a multi-local working environment which requires new social competencies for all those working in it. 24/7 connectivity may help combine private life and work, but it can also be a burden and lead to health risks.

3.5

Automation and robots have a significant impact on the future of work. The benefits are obvious: higher productivity and reliability, and replacement of monotonous, heavy or dangerous work. A new generation of so-called ‘collaborative robots’ can become physical partners for workers and, in particular, be helpful for people with physical disabilities. Artificial intelligence will allow the automation of complex work, which will affect not only blue-collar work, but white-collar professions as well (insurance sector, financing services, translators, legal advice, etc.) (12). Automation and robots have the potential to stabilise the economy in an ageing society.

3.6

Robots initially replace human workers but new jobs may be created subsequently. It is often discussed in the public forum how many jobs are affected and how many new jobs may be created at the same time. The trend is clear, but the numbers vary largely. For example, the World Economic Forum predicted that more than 5,1 million jobs would be lost in 15 major developed and emerging economies due to disruptive labour market changes between 2015-2020, as artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology and other socio-economic factors replace the need for human workers, while on the other hand those same technological advances would also create 2 million new jobs (13). There is no doubt that with robots productivity will increase, which is good for the economy and for our society, since this leads to a higher GDP. It is almost impossible to predict how the GDP surplus will be used for the creation of new jobs (14). We can learn from the past, when automation led to more wealth in society with growth and new jobs in specific areas such as culture, art, tourism, social work, education, communication, entertainment or health care. We can expect that this trend will continue, although it may be faster than in the past. This may lead to distortions for which social dialogue may be needed at an early stage.

3.7

In addition, the digitalisation and robotisation of transport will bring about profound changes in the nature of work and the demand for skills. The EESC highlights the importance of dealing with these structural changes by enhancing a fair and smooth transition and addressing the skills gap (15).

4.1

Competencies are a necessary prerequisite for transforming knowledge into results that increase our well-being — yet the digital age brings new challenges. We expect growing numbers of workers with atypical employment contracts who frequently lack access to traditional, company-based training schemes. Technical and social competencies, which comprise the ability to communicate and interact with people in different contexts and through different technical tools, as well as entrepreneurial competencies and a focus on responsibility towards society, are already a prerequisite, but the majority of education systems are still unable to deliver them as they were designed for a different era. The Committee once again calls upon the Member States, in cooperation with the EU institutions and agencies, as well as companies in Europe, to increase their capacity and introduce more innovative solutions in the fields of education and skills development, including workplace training and re-training, as Europe needs a genuine paradigm shift in the goals and functioning of the education sector, and an understanding of its place and role in society (16).

4.2

Digitalisation creates potential for accessible and personalised technologies that can offer more learner-centred learning paths and create a learning continuum between formal, non-formal and informal learning. Digital solutions can be integrated into lifelong learning strategies and can be a powerful tool for narrowing the achievement and opportunity gaps. However, this is heavily dependent on how digital technology is introduced and used in learning environments.

4.3

To achieve enhanced learning experiences and outcomes of learning, the education system needs to place the learner at its centre: he/she is the one who should regulate his/her learning, training and upskilling. This would equip learners to become active, digital citizens, able to capitalise on the knowledge they acquired by controlling the nature, place, pace and timing of their learning in accordance with their views and values, and with values such as solidarity and respect for difference that are part of the European identity. Thus, future investment in technologies has to be closely accompanied by investment in people and by greater access to lifelong learning opportunities.

4.4

Future skills should also match societal needs and the demands of the labour market. This can only be achieved through close cooperation between public and private education institutions and all other relevant interest groups, including the social partners and companies. More volatile markets will give rise to challenges, as businesses and workers will have to adapt quickly enough. In 2010 (17), the EESC expressed its support for the establishment of sector councils (ESC) on employment and skills at European level. Until today ESCs have been set up only in two sectors, while ESC projects in 14 other sectors are still in their infancy. The EESC would like to ask the European Commission to explain why this development is so slow and doesn’t get the necessary support from sectors and national institutions.

4.5

Learners need to be guided towards innovative practices of knowledge creation, which implies the merging of social, physical, digital, virtual and mobile spaces for learning, and to learn how to learn. Inquiry and project-based learning, phenomenon-based learning, student-activating activities, collaborative learning and flipped learning, for example, all lead to more reflective and participatory learning processes. One possible way to narrow or eliminate gaps between innovation in technology and pedagogy is to link formal, non-formal and informal learning structures more effectively.

4.6

Lifelong learning is a necessity for society and all relevant players. It starts with a robust general education — a key part of individual development, which helps to prepare a person for new and unpredictable challenges — and continues for a much longer time with professional training and informal learning, which should be supported by a harmonised system of EU-wide certificates and standards and also by appropriate common tools to determine comparability and equivalence of learning outcomes. The requirements for learning will become more important, with growing demands on the flexibility of individuals, companies and all education and training systems, thus the interdisciplinary approach will play an increasingly important role.

4.7

The EESC reiterates its proposal (18) to prove whether European measures are needed to ensure that Member States' positive experiences with training leave are disseminated across the EU.

4.8

The current systems are in general not adapted to the structure of digital labour markets, in which non-standard employment will be more prominent. The current systems reach standard employees through workplace-based training, if at all. Systems have to be updated in order to enable everybody in the labour market to have access to training. The EU will have to mobilise considerably more funding for investment in training, otherwise adequate training will become the privilege of the few. This is an issue, as only those with up-to-date skills stand a good chance of finding decent and fairly remunerated jobs.

4.9

Digital skills should be introduced from the earliest schooldays (19) and basic education should include more interactive digital learning (20). Digital skills, however, can go beyond programming to include becoming aware of what lies behind a ‘mouse click’: understanding the system, the interconnections, the social impact, and privacy and security issues.

4.10

Digital tools play an important role in transforming and supporting teaching, which can result in the increased engagement of learners and improved results (21). As educators and teachers will have an increasingly important role to play, their competencies will have to adapt to new approaches, technologies and knowledge in the new education environment. Qualitative preparation of educators will, therefore, become key, as well as their status in terms of professional flexibility, remuneration, social guarantees, etc. In order to ensure the qualitative change across European education systems, the EESC recommends following the successful current examples within the EU (22) and calls for more investment in the initial and continuous professional development of teachers and other educators.

4.11

In addition to assisting the formal education actors in their efforts to become lifelong education providers, additional support needs to be given to non-formal education providers. They can reach out to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and provide them with access to lifelong learning opportunities, including the possibility of validating learning acquired via digital, online and open learning resources and tools, and via various assessment and self-assessment, formative and summative methods.

4.12

Apart from the potential to improve teaching and learning processes, digital technologies can also foster new assessment methods, including self-assessment, that can supplement traditional summative approaches; namely methods that make assessment an integral part of learning through artificial intelligence, machine intelligence, learning analytics and new ways of linking the assessment to learning materials. Use of analytical technologies enables rapid feedback loops which allow real-time assessment, and thus contribute to more personalised learning.

4.13

In the domain of science and research at university level, the digitalisation of every research field makes it necessary to deal with huge amounts of scientific data. A suitable data infrastructure (at national and international level) will make it possible to access and analyse these data remotely as well. While Europe is planning to provide the infrastructure needed to accelerate science and innovation, an estimated half a million data experts will be needed in Europe by 2025 (23). Europe has to make a concerted effort to develop such core data expertise. National high-end education does play an important role in this respect and must be complemented by European schemes such as Erasmus+ and Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions.

5.1

Europe has many good examples to offer regarding how to deal with the requirements for new skills in the digital age. The EESC welcomes the various initiatives from the Commission related to lifelong learning, digital skills and jobs, the new skills agenda and Erasmus+. The good practice repository set up by the Commission has the potential to serve as a facilitator for an EU-wide debate to identify guidelines and standards based on best practice. Organised civil society can and will play an important role in this context.

5.2

The EESC would like to emphasise the highly respected work accomplished by the EU agencies, such as Eurofound and Cedefop. Better interagency cooperation could lead to higher impact and would attract more attention from our Member States and the EU institutions.

5.3

A system to provide skills and competencies for future work has to be developed now. Where possible, it should be based on skills assessment and anticipation exercises identifying long-term skills needs at all levels, while at the European level the establishment of sector councils on employment and skills should be strengthened, in order to avoid skills shortages and mismatches. This is an urgent task for all stakeholders, including the public and private institutions involved.

5.4

Clear roles for the various formal education levels, as well as links between them, should be set; for example: fostering creativity and imagination — at preschool level; combining creativity with solid basic knowledge, and fostering critical thinking and adaptation of knowledge — at school level; adding specialised interdisciplinary skills — at VET level; and expanding professional interdisciplinary knowledge and thinking — at higher education level.

5.5

Professional education and training provided by companies for their employees is key. Here, cooperation between companies, universities and professional institutions will be crucial. There will be an increasing number of organisations that will provide non-formal education, i.e. organised educational activities outside the established formal system. Civil society could create new educational fora for competence development, in cooperation with various individuals, institutions and interests.

5.6

SMEs need special support from outside because as a rule they have limited resources for training, particularly when new technologies emerge and the specific knowhow is not yet available in-house. Institutions such as chambers of commerce or the organisations of liberal professions in connection with schools, universities and private training centres, as well as institutions based on a public-private partnership, could be helpful in providing education programmes.

5.7

Informal learning will play an increasingly important role as a truly lifelong process whereby every individual acquires skills and knowledge from daily experience; this sector could be improved qualitatively thanks to publicly funded programmes offered through TV channels, internet platforms or other media. Standards and certificates would be helpful in making these learning achievements measurable and comparable, particularly in the event of a job change.

5.8

With regard to all the different forms of education, existing tools for determining the comparability and equivalence of informal learning need to be improved. Existing recognition systems for prior education, learning outcomes and competencies have to be overhauled in order to become a reliable and accessible standard for all, as well as to be able to help learners become aware of their own experiences, competencies and knowledge.

5.9

Social security and collective bargaining is an issue, particularly for crowdworkers and those in atypical employment. A growing number of such ‘digital nomads’ are threatened by poverty when getting old. Public policy has to develop regulations to deal with this problem. Some social dialogue initiatives dealing with these issues already exist. One good example is the trade union IG Metall in Germany, which has set up the faircrowdwork.org internet platform providing guidance for crowdworkers which, together with other stakeholders, has developed a Code of Conduct for crowdworker platforms. The EESC would like to see identified best practice rolled out across Europe.

15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/43

Rapporteur:

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

1.1

The EESC considers that an efficient customs union is an essential prerequisite for the European integration process with a view to ensuring the free movement of goods and strengthening the EU’s competitiveness and its commercial and negotiating capacity, but that it is also important for the development of a Security Union as it contributes greatly to combating newly emerging and unprecedented security threats whilst protecting the security of citizens and their financial interests.

1.2

The EESC believes that the main aim of the new customs legislation is to simplify procedures and bring them into line with the latest data, and that effective application of the Union Customs Code (UCC) would help to boost the EU’s economic competitiveness across the world.

1.3

The EESC agrees with the Commission’s proposal to develop the governance of the customs union, but believes that establishing it in a comprehensive way requires multilevel reform and resolute action on the technical front, without changing the EU’s competences or upsetting the balance between the institutions. However, the EESC underlines that any reforms undertaken should not hinder the facilitation of legitimate trade or the protection of fundamental rights.

1.4

The EESC believes that effective application of customs legislation consists primarily of efforts to minimise the possibility of varying interpretations by Member State administrations. This must be preceded by the completion of interoperable computerised systems and a shift to a fully digital environment, using a range of resources on which the organisation and functioning of national authorities is based.

1.5

The EESC considers that a switch to automated central clearance is needed, in order to facilitate the coordination of measures to prevent and suppress criminal activity and protect the EU’s financial interests, so that the rights, interests and safety of businesses and European consumers are protected. For that reason, the EESC calls for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which would make a positive contribution to that end.

1.6

In the EESC’s view, a common European customs strategy is needed encompassing the dual role played by customs authorities: border control, together with mixed tasks — customs checks and collection of duties, and helping to prevent and combat criminal activity. At the same time, it must provide for the optimisation of material and human resources, by investing in expanding and upgrading the former and prioritising training and preparedness of the latter, for EU administrative support measures to be developed in applying the relevant legislation and for closer monitoring of its application.

1.7

The EESC believes that the strategy must be designed taking into consideration the diversity of economic operators who must comply with customs legislation, the immediate need to harness new technologies and innovation while ensuring full respect for the data privacy of individuals and businesses, as well as for intellectual, industrial and commercial property rights, and also taking account of the human factor that is the driving force of customs authorities. Special attention must be paid to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers.

1.8

The EESC considers that the functioning of the decentralised operating model needs to be strengthened by means of administrative cooperation, with central coordination by a support body or organisation under the guidance of the Commission and with the involvement of the Customs Policy Group, in order to assist with implementation issues concerning the UCC. This body would also be tasked, among other things, with the operation of action and training programmes focusing specifically on security matters, the provision of a high level of specialisation and promotion of professional expertise in the customs sector. At the same time, it could issue guidelines in order to respond rapidly and directly to new challenges.

1.9

The EESC also considers it vitally important to extend and reinforce the Customs 2020 and Fiscalis 2020 programmes, which can act as catalysts in the targeted absorption of funding for governance purposes (training, dissemination of information, operational action, equipment, etc.).

1.10

The EESC looks forward to an intensified process of concluding agreements on mutual administrative assistance with trade partners that fully reflect the steadily expanding trade cooperation with non-EU countries and the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

1.11

The EESC believes there is a need to take key measures in the areas of protection and security, where customs authorities are already having to face challenges. It consequently considers that cooperation between customs and police authorities needs to be put on a more institutional footing and centrally coordinated. Cross-sectoral cooperation between European bodies and decentralised services must also be reinforced with the aim of stepping up the Union’s action and of increasing its presence on the external borders through the Member States. Cooperation should aim, among other things, to tackle terrorist funding and arms trafficking and to check dual-use goods and the related technology more thoroughly. In addition, counterfeiting and piracy need to be tackled efficiently and effectively.

1.12

The EESC considers that all the measures taken must necessarily include an open dialogue with all stakeholders (businesses, consumers, customs authorities, customs officials, trade unions and civil society organisations) in order to gain a clearer and more complete picture of the issues to be resolved, while taking into account the interests of all sides.

1.13

Finally, the EESC believes that whatever approach is adopted to modernise the customs union, it must properly take into account the changes in the external borders of the Union which will be brought about by Brexit.

2.1

The customs union has been a vital prerequisite for European integration, in particular to ensure the uniform and smooth implementation of the free movement of goods in a safe, transparent and environment- and consumer-friendly manner that is effective in tackling cross-border activities that are punishable by law (1).

2.2

The customs union is the cornerstone of the single market and must consequently fully reflect its needs. It has in addition served to help boost EU competitiveness on the global market. The contribution made to the European budget by customs duties is also very significant. Specifically, in 2015 revenue amounted to EUR 18,6 billion, representing some 13,6 % of the EU budget.

2.3

As well as protective measures in the form of prohibitions and measures aimed at ensuring safety and security for EU citizens, setting up the customs union also requires introducing or reforming measures such as the adoption of a common trade policy and common external tariff, as well as a preferential tariff introduced through association agreements between the EU and neighbouring countries and potential candidate states, but also through free trade agreements with third countries.

2.4

The objective of the customs union is to facilitate legal trade and in this way strive to combat fraud in trade transactions and at the same time block the illicit movement of goods and financial transactions that could be used for illegal or terrorist purposes.

3.1

The Commission’s purpose in publishing the communication was to launch a dialogue about modernising the customs union to reflect the new situation that has evolved over time on account of:

with a view to carrying out a structural reform of basic aspects of the customs union and establishing a new governance model.

3.2

In the communication, the Commission emphasises the need to boost the efficiency of the customs union by modernising its architecture, in order to step up cooperation between EU customs authorities and create structures that can evolve in an adaptable and flexible way.

3.3

The communication in question does not suggest extending EU competence to new areas, but represents an attempt to modernise customs union policies by making them more flexible and efficient so as to respond to continually changing situations.

4.1

The review of the UCC introduced significant amendments with the aim of simplifying and facilitating trade. However, customs legislation and legislation on the free movement of goods as a whole remain highly complex, comprising some 1 127 texts currently in force (agreements, directives, regulations and decisions) (2). This makes it difficult for anyone to invoke the relevant provisions unless they are already familiar with European law.

4.2

The previous regime clearly contained greater ambiguities, leaving room for relevant national legal provisions to creep in, with arguable consequences that were damaging to uniform application. The comprehensive codification of the UCC means that European law is directly applicable and has direct effect, although it is still implemented exclusively by national customs systems that vary substantially in organisational terms, resulting in fragmentation, a heavier administrative burden, bureaucratic dysfunctions, and delays (3). Moreover, the exceptionally lengthy transitional period generates uncertainty and could be detrimental to businesses, especially micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers.

4.3

Customs authorities have traditionally been responsible for collecting customs duties and indirect taxes, but they are now also asked to help strengthen the Union’s external borders and tackle illegal practices that are harmful both externally and internally.

4.4

EU enlargements have placed a greater burden on the decentralised model, requiring coordination and retraining of more than 120 000 customs staff, since fundamental differences exist between customs systems, inspection mechanisms, logistical infrastructure — which now requires high-tech systems — providing staff for customs offices, and resources.

4.5

The application of new technologies in European industry and the introduction of the digital single market, together with the proposed reform of the VAT system, represent progress, but they increase the need for customs procedures to be flexible and adapted to the complexity of modern transactions. The same applies to evolving production and consumption patterns, increasing international trade, and global threats to the development of global trade, which form part of the context of EU trade policy.

5.1

The concept of customs governance should be based on the following components:

6.1

In keeping with the Commission’s proposal, with which the EESC agrees, the operational vision for the customs union should be upgraded to form a coherent strategy with a clear timetable, based on the principles set out above and the points examined below.

6.2

An impact study and evaluation of the new UCC needs to be drawn up, an interim version of which is to be prepared before the end of 2017, modelled on previous studies but with greater breadth and in all areas of activity (4), so that the strategy invests in eliminating problems, weaknesses, overlaps, inconsistencies and obsolete measures, and ensures that the next steps in the process are built on a sound basis (5). The study should also pay particular attention to the implications for customs human resources.

6.3

The focus should be on exchanges of information and best practices between customs and administrative authorities through the systematic and methodical use of information technology. Existing databases should be assessed for customs purposes to this end.

6.4

A decentralised and business-friendly model based on the administrative structures of the Member States can succeed only in so far as the national administrative authorities are heeded. In consequence, permanent, flexible institutional structures need to be set up. For this reason, it is proposed to set up a support body or organisation under the guidance of the European Commission and with the involvement of the Customs Policy Group, with a view to:

With regard to this organisation, the EESC maintains its position and recommends the creation of a European rapid intervention team to support the specialised and important work of customs authorities, particularly those situated on the Union’s external borders.

6.5

The EESC considers that the Commission Customs Policy Group — which operates informally, and whose current powers are minimal and its influence negligible — could come to play a significant role in the new era of customs governance (7). The EESC therefore recommends drawing up rules of procedure and urges the Member States to work together to allow this body to operate as efficiently as possible. Another important issue in the EESC’s view is significantly enhancing the existing cooperation between the Member States and groups of experts on issues relating to customs policy.

6.6

The EESC considers that the Customs 2020 Programme has achieved positive results in disseminating and relaying information on the customs union to both customs staff and businesses. It is a useful tool for cooperation between the EU and candidate and potential candidate countries (8), and expanding it and prolonging it beyond the time frame initially set would therefore help to roll out cross-cutting actions (9) regarding the following matters:

6.7

The EESC further considers that the Fiscalis 2020 programme, which aims to enhance the Member State tax systems, could also help to develop common measures and promote closer cooperation between tax and customs authorities at transnational level.

6.8

The EESC supports the Commission’s efforts, as reflected for example in the communication on an action plan on VAT, to strengthen this cooperation by creating a toolbox to be available to the legislative and other authorities of the Member States when seeking to combat VAT-related tax fraud. The benefit of such a toolbox would be to facilitate the move to a definitive VAT system in the EU for cross-border trade, based on the principle of the country of destination.

6.9

The EESC supports initiatives concerning standards and as part of dialogue with the World Customs Organisation (WCO), and therefore welcomes the introduction of the authorised economic operator and of single accreditation and certification. It therefore calls on the Commission to look into the potential for refining these initiatives with the aim of further reducing the administrative burden and obstacles for businesses.

6.10

In this context, the EESC believes it is necessary to uphold and implement the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, which simplifies and clarifies international import and export procedures, customs formalities and transit requirements. Moreover, the EESC believes it is crucial to step up the process of concluding agreements on mutual administrative assistance with trade partners that fully reflect the steadily expanding cooperation in trade with non-EU countries.

6.11

The EESC welcomes the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union legal framework for customs infringements and sanctions, which has unfortunately been significantly delayed: its adoption, with the positions expressed by the European Parliament at the first reading, as well as the arguments already put forward by the EESC (10), would contribute to greater uniformity and legal certainty.

6.12

The EESC considers that a Single European Window (portal) needs to be created, based on the single audit principle, to minimise the administrative burden and drastically simplify customs clearance procedures. This requires the immediate development of the EU certificates database and automated verification of certificates.

6.13

The EESC is concerned about the changes Brexit will entail for the EU’s borders. We nevertheless support fully transparent negotiations conducted in good faith. We believe that the commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process must be ensured and the creation of a ‘hard border’ avoided, but in a way that is not harmful to the Union and its interests.

7.1

Here, the emphasis should be on protecting the EU’s external borders from threats by developing synergies with neighbouring countries or candidate and potential candidate states, and with their customs authorities, in order to manage risks posed by exceptional security situations (fraud and related illegal activities, terrorism, sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary incidents or environmental incidents), while also examining the potential to enhance international cooperation for the same reasons, especially with potential and current trading partners.

7.2

There should be a thorough study of the need for revision of other specific legislation that has been in force for more than ten years without amendment and which has a substantial impact on customs governance. The REFIT platform might be a useful tool for assessing whether the regulatory framework for customs legislation is ‘fit for purpose’ in this regard. The EESC underlines, however, that any reforms undertaken should not hinder the facilitation of legitimate trade or the protection of fundamental rights.

7.3

The EESC appreciates the development and implementation of the EU Strategy and Action Plan for customs risk management and notes the need to intensify efforts in areas falling outside the customs remit, as noted in the Commission’s Progress Report in 2016.

7.4

In addition, the EESC welcomes the efforts made at bilateral level, but considers that cooperation between customs, judicial and police authorities needs to be put on a more institutional footing so as to more effectively tackle terrorist funding and arms trafficking, to protect intellectual property rights, dual-use goods and related technology, by means of risk-based controls as prescribed by the Customs Risk Management System (CRMS) and with due regard to the EU Strategy and Action Plan for customs risk management and the Commission Action Plan for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing. Moreover, greater efforts need to be made to tackle counterfeiting and piracy efficiently and effectively.

7.5

It is necessary to move forward with the process of amending Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, based on the outcome of the public consultation and the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force.

7.6

To this end the blacklist of countries that refuse to take adequate measures to combat money-laundering should be reviewed. The list was rejected by the European Parliament for not adequately reflecting the current situation: checks should therefore be stepped up, as also provided for in the relevant directive under revision (fourth anti-money-laundering directive).

7.7

The EESC urges the Council and the Parliament to finalise the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which is in charge of investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice the perpetrators of offences against the Union’s financial interests, and calls on all members to join the effort.

7.8

The EESC also considers that cross-sectoral cooperation between European bodies and services (decentralised or otherwise) such as the European Police Office (Europol), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), the European Union Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust), and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), should be strengthened and reinforced on the basis of the strategy on integrated border management and Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 and with special reference to the European Agenda on Security, in order to:

15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/51

Rapporteur:

Michael IKRATH

Co-rapporteur:

Carlos TRIAS PINTÓ

1.1

The EESC welcomes the fact that at this stage the European Commission is refraining from regulatory measures, and supports it in its determination to apply the relevant competition rules if this should prove necessary to ensure a level playing field and consumer protection.

1.2

The EESC welcomes the European Commission's initiative aimed at deepening the single market by means of the action plan. This will require, on the one hand, the gradual extension of the economic and monetary union and, on the other hand, further harmonisation of financial products and services in combination with digital innovation while maintaining fair and technology- and business model-neutral conditions of competition.

1.3

The EESC calls on the Member States to redouble their efforts to achieve the in-depth, harmonised, coordinated and systematic application of the broad range of pan-European standards currently in the process of being implemented to ensure that they are fully inclusive for consumers, while protecting them from the numerous risks associated with the new financial scenarios.

1.4

The EESC notes that particular attention is to be paid to the traditional retail banks (‘boring banking’) as a key intermediary of such products and services. Traditionally these banks, especially regional or local banks, have enjoyed a high level of trust from EU consumers, whose tendency to switch providers is rather low. Nevertheless, cross-border products should be promoted to underline the idea of the single market and the free movement of persons and goods.

1.5

At the same time consumers' concerns e.g. difference of language, of legislation, higher charges for non-residents, refusal of access to certain financial services and products for non-residents, tax differences, over exploitation of the money laundering legislation, currency exchange risks, should be addressed.

1.6

The EESC invites the Commission to carry out a study on how many economically vulnerable borrowers are taking on cross-border consumer loans which are not available to them at home (loan shopping), thus exposing themselves to a high risk of over-indebtedness.

1.7

In the interests of comparability and transparency of financial products and services in order to create a level playing field between the Member States, the EESC recommends taking steps to ensure that the tax arrangements for products and services are no longer an obstacle to fair competition.

1.8

The EESC urges the Commission to make provision for appropriate, independent, obligatorily certified comparison tools for different financial products in the various legal jurisdictions that make up the European Union.

1.9

The EESC recommends regulation of non-European IT giants, such as Google, Apple etc., which can use their customer databases to offer customised products for direct sale without being subject to EU consumer protection rules and other regulations.

1.10

The EESC is firmly convinced that digitalisation is continuously and constantly changing consumer behaviour. It therefore welcomes and supports the Commission's focus on boosting the Digital Single Market with particular attention paid to financial services. The Commission is right to focus on eliminating barriers that hinder cross-border digital distribution (geo-blocking). This is, in the EESC's view, the only opportunity to bring about a genuine single market of financial services for consumers.

1.11

In the area of FinTech and in the interests of sustainable regulation, and with a view to preserving financial stability as much as possible, the Committee believes that there should be a level playing field between all those who provide the financial services in question and that the same guarantees for consumers as those that exist in the traditional banking sector must take precedence at all times.

1.12

The EESC recommends that the Commission define additional products, which are simple, with the same characteristics and so comparable and transparent alongside the consumer products already set out in the action plan. These open up the possibility of being offered as ‘flagship products’ across the entire EU via various distribution systems (FinTech, traditional branches, etc.), and of encouraging consumers to trust these products. With sound information about the product and product transparency, consumers can choose the best provider from across the EU, risk free.

1.13

The independence between the different involved parties in the management of the same financial service, avoiding any conflict of interest, should be reinforced, since this facilitates good governance and effective supervision of financial services.

1.14

The EESC stresses the need to review periodically the impact of every standard on the development of financial products and services intended for consumers, while at the same time appropriately strengthen the resources of the supervisory authorities. It also points out that effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms are needed for cross-border transactions, as a key factor in improving consumer confidence.

1.15

Ultimately, if we want the results obtained for citizens and businesses to be effective and efficient at minimising costs, the Committee is of the view that any action and any text on the subject must build upon and take into account the principles of the REFIT programme. Without compromising the clear objectives in this area, it is important that any future legislation and regulation relating to this remains simple and removes unnecessary burdens. Similarly, in order to achieve a genuine single market, which is not fragmented, any over-regulation at national or regional level must be avoided.

2.1

This action plan aims to give European consumers a wider choice of and better access to financial services in the EU.