It took 2 months for French MEPs Aurore Lalucq (S&D) and Manon Aubry (GUE/NGL) to receive an answer from the European Commission to their priority question on the contract obtained by US asset manager BlackRock to carry out a study on the integration of environmental and social factors in the supervision of banks (see EUROPE 12468/23).
The response, received on Tuesday 16 June following a reminder letter sent the day before, is far from satisfactory. The Commission’s argument that BlackRock’s offer was cheaper than its competitors is “unintelligible” and validates the risk of conflict of interest, according to both MEPs.
“For Europe’s top decision-maker, this is degree zero of political decision making. What’s the next step? Monsanto advising on sustainable agriculture?” Aurore Lalucq was outraged.
In support of its reply, the Commission annexed to the letter the analysis grid it used to reach its decision. According to Mss Lalucq and Aubry, this approach is completely “unsuitable”, because it favours a quantitative logic, through a points system, instead of a qualitative logic, which prefer to see red lines appear, such as the risk of conflict of interest.
Last week Damien Carême (Greens/EFA, France) expressed disappointment at the Commission’s response to his letter and decided to refer the matter to the European Ombudsman again (see EUROPE 12504/20).
The two MEPs do not intend to stop there either. They will send a new written question to the Commission asking for new selection criteria for calls for tenders.
See the Commission’s reply (in French): https://bit.ly/37EiH4O and the Annex: https://bit.ly/2N728VD (Marion Fontana)