Negotiations on country-by-country reporting do not look like they are going to be easy at the European Parliament. Following several months of beating about the bush on the parliamentary committee responsible for this dossier (it will ultimately be the responsibility of the ECON and JURI committees), MEPs are now getting into the substance of the subject. An initial meeting of shadow rapporteurs will take place in Strasbourg on Wednesday 5 April and the amendments submitted provide an idea of the scale of the task.
The GUE/NGL, S&D, Greens/EFA and the EFDD Groups have all reasserted their support for a turnover threshold of €40 million for the companies affected (as opposed to the €750 million in the Commission proposal). The other groups have retained the idea of a €750 million threshold.
Markus Ferber (EPP, Germany) has furthermore submitted an amendment to restrict the text’s scope of application to quoted parent companies.
A broad range of political groups (all of them except for the EPP and ECR) also support the extension of information requirements to be included in the reporting. The Commission proposal stipulates that companies include their turnover in this, as well as the number of employees, the kind of activity undertaken, the before tax profits, taxes owed and paid, etc.
The ALDE Group also wants to include the number of hours worked. Other amendments include the number of full-time employees, property values excluding cash holdings, sales volume and purchases, net turnover with related parts, payments to politically exposed persons and officials, effective rate of tax and even whether the company has benefited from a preferential tax regime.
Many amendments have also been introduced, particularly in cases where the reporting disclosure in question would be damaging to a company and could affect its competitive edge (there are seven amendments in this connection).
ALDE is also requesting that information from companies whose parent company is located outside the EU and that have a limited presence in the EU not be disclosed. Other amendments stipulate that companies operating in a single member state be also exempt from the directive’s scope.
EPP and ECR MEPs introduced a similar provision to the Dutch idea at the Council, according to which, in the event of information not being available due to the refusal from a parent company located in a third country, the European subsidiary should provide the reporting on the basis of its own figures and explain the reasons for the refusal to carry out this reporting.
With regard to the Dutch idea, the Slovak Presidency of the Council during the most recent semester introduced a “comply or explain” system. This system would be reserved for companies that do not have their HQ in Europe and would allow companies exemptions on applying the provisions in the directive if they explain why they are unable to do so.
The European Parliament's political groups will now negotiate the text provisions in an effort to define a common position in their negotiations with the Council. (Original version in French by Élodie Lamer)