Anticipating the new "corporate governance" rules. The European Investment Bank (EIB) intends to set the standard. It has correctly anticipated practices and innovations which have been years in the making, in Europe and the rest of the industrialised world, in the field of "corporate governance". The basic guidelines, part of which have already retained (notably in the US) and part are being outlined, on the transparency of business activity, have been taken up by the EIB in a detailed and thorough code of behaviour. On points on which differences of opinion or reluctance subsist, the EIB has generally gone for advanced or compromise formulae. For instance, on the frequency of reports on business accounts, there exists within the Union a general trend towards yearly reporting, and quarterly publishing obligations. For itself, the EIB has chosen the happy medium of bi-annual publishing of a summary of turnover and consolidated profit and loss.
The EIB was already at the forefront of these fields. It had already laid down a global transparency policy, and it played a pioneering role compared to other financial institutions, by publishing an annual "bank action plan" (BAP). But its president, Philippe Maydstadt, felt that they should go further, and, in agreement with the vice-presidents, submitted an additional standards project to the board, which approved them on 16 June.
At the service of the Union. This initiative should be placed within the context of the general guidelines Mr Maystadt has given the EIB. Since he took up the presidency in 1999, his goal has been to make it into more of an instrument at the service of Union policies. This is not a dig at previous presidents. When the EIB entered the international banking scene, it aroused distrust and jealousy; its capital belonged to the Member States, and in some quarters, there was concern that it would enjoy specific advantages. The EIB's main concern was finding its place and gaining the trust of the finance world (its "triple A" status was essential to the harvest of its resources on the capital markets, to the benefit of its clients). These objectives having been achieved under its first presidents, subsequent ones were able to give their full attention to adapting EIB policy to Community objectives, and Mr Maystadt has upped this priority, from two points of view: in the choice of projects to fund, and by often making a proportion of the Bank's reserves available to the service of these objectives. Some private circles continue to criticise the EIB for what they feel is excessive caution in its risk-taking; but it should always be borne in mind that it is by keeping its international standing that the EIB is able to fund projects in the best possible conditions. The "Channel Tunnel" cases still remain the exception. Furthermore, the balance between market confidence and the admissible degree of risk-taking is not altogether easy; there will never be overall agreement on this.
Everything but business secrecy. Transparency is the second objective. After resounding scandals and abuses which rocked the very foundations of the capitalist system, Mr Maystadt wanted the EIB to lead by example. Including this subject on a memorandum means that, for the EIB, "a high degree of transparency is a component part of its mission (...). As a public instrument designed to promote and support the expansion of the EU, is must apply exemplary standards", especially in decision-making, fraud prevention, management controls, codes of conduct, conflicts of interest, social issues, and evaluation of its operational activities. It pays close attention to debates underway at EU level on reinforcing governance, referring to the Commission's communication on modernising company law, the recommendations of the Winter group and European Parliament resolutions. The document underlines the fact that the aforementioned BAP, by defining the EIB's priorities for the three coming years, helps the results presented in the annual report to be assessed; it points out that each year, the EIB publishes a report on the environment (thus guaranteeing the transparency of its action from this point of view), and will shortly undertake to publish a social assessment of its funding actions in developing countries. Among the new measures decided upon are a curriculum vitae for each administrator, and a statement on their financial interests, plus detailed indications on all salaries.
Everything will be transparent, except "business secrecy". It is clear, for instance, that if an automotive company seeks funding for a new kind of engine, parts of the dossier will not be handed over to rivals. But even in such cases, the EIB reserves the right to ascertain whether there are valid reasons to make certain information confidential.
(F.R.)