Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'Commission meetings with BusinessEurope'.

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
Meeting with Markus Beyrer 
Director General, Business Europe 
 
Scene setter 
Data Protection / Schrems II 
•  A representative from Business Europe participated in the industry roundtable on the 
consequences of the Schrems II judgment that took place on 21 September. Business 
Europe welcomed the constructive communication on both sides of the Atlantic and 
stressed that there is a lot of legal uncertainty, calling for urgent guidance from the 
European Data Protection Board. 
Digital Services Act 
•  Provide assurance that the Commission will take an approach to the DSA that promotes 
fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression, freedom to conduct a 
business as well as the freedom of establishment and provision of services, while at the 
same time ensuring a system for platform responsibility in relation to illegal content. 
Artificial Intelligence 
•  JUST A2 had two bilateral meetings with Business Europe to discuss AI liability, on 20 
January and 2 April 2020.  
•  Business Europe contributed to the public consultation1. They stated that the scope of 
any new requirements should take a risk-based approach and only set market access 
requirements for “high-risk” AI. This should be defined to focus on where the highest 
and most widespread societal damage is likely  to occur. As regards safety, sectoral 
legislation could be the better alternative. National and EU rules on liability are largely 
fit for purpose; any need for revision should be clearly demonstrated. 
Sustainable Corporate Governance 
•  Mr Beyer had an exchange of views with VP Jourova on due diligence and other 
sustainable corporate governance-related issues on 22 July. He sent the position of 
BusinessEurope on the matter to the VP in a letter dated 24 July. 
•  The objective regarding sustainable corporate governance in this meeting would be to 
explain why an EU initiative is needed. BusinessEurope’s initial objection against EU 
harmonisation in this field seems to have turned into a “constructive opposition”. 
Identifying points where our views are similar is possible and there is room for further 
convergence. 
 
 
 
                                                            
1 https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/position_papers/internal_market/2020-07-
15_ai_a_european_approach_to_excellence_and_trust.pdf 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
Lines to take 
 
DATA PROTECTION 

•  Given the importance of data protection as a 
fundamental right  and as a stepping stone for a wide 
range of policies, the Commission attaches a great 
importance to the correct implementation of  the new 
data protection rules. 
•  We have adopted a multi-faceted approach to 
implementation: we have engaged into bilateral 
dialogues with Member States on the compliance of 
national legislations; we work closely with data 
protection authorities in the context of the European 
Data Protection Board; we also support those authorities 
financially through grants. 
•  We have published in June an evaluation report on the 
application of the GDPR. In line with the obligation 
steaming from the GPPR we focused in particular on 
international transfers and on the functioning of the 
cooperation and consistency mechanism
. However we 
took a much broader approach and we also examined 
many other aspects of the application of the GDPR. 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  We  have  taken  into account the contribution of the 
Council, the European Parliament, the European Data 
Protection authorities and our GDPR Multi Stakeholder 
Group. 
•  The first main finding of the report  is that this 
legislation has empowered European citizens when it 
comes to the protection of their personal data. They 
effectively made use of their rights to lodge a complaint 
with their national data protection authority and to seek 
an effective solution. 
•  Second,  the  report established that the  governance 
system, based on independent data protection authorities 
in the Member States and their cooperation in cross-
border cases and within the European Data Protection 
Board (‘the Board’),  is working. However,  one of the 
key objectives of the GDPR, namely to develop a truly 
common European data protection culture between data 
protection authorities is still an on-going process.  The 
Board is working on improvements,  with our full 
support. 
•  Third,  the  report shows that the GDPR  offers 
opportunities to European  companies by fostering 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
competition and innovation, ensuring the free flow of 
data within the EU and creating a level playing field 
with companies established outside the EU, based on the 
respect of European standards. 
•  Finally, we were able to confirm that the GDPR, having 
been conceived in a technology neutral way, is an 
essential and flexible tool to ensure that the development 
of new technologies is in compliance with fundamental 
rights. 
•  After two years, we can also already see where we need 
to make more progress. A number of areas for future 
improvement have been identified. 
•   It is likely that most of the issues identified will benefit 
from more experience in applying the GDPR in the 
coming years. Our report sets out possible ways to 
address them, one of the main ones being the need to 
ensure that national data protection authorities  have 
the necessary human, technical and financial 
resources. 
 
•  Another one is the need for more uniformity in the 
implementation of the rules in our Member States
The GDPR removed a plethora of different rules across 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
Europe, but more work is needed. The Commission will 
play its part here, closely monitoring the situation in our 
regular exchanges with Member States. 
•  We also need a more European approach from 
national data protection authorities, with more 
efficient working arrangements between them. 
Relation GDPR and Data Strategy 
•  On 19 February, together with the White Paper on AI, 
the Commission issued a Communication on a European 
strategy for data. It sets out the actions that the 
Commission plans to undertake in the coming five years 
to further develop the data economy in Europe and to 
increase the competitiveness of Europe’s businesses. 
•  The European Strategy for data aims to enable a wider 
availability of privately and publicly held data, in 
particular through the creation of European data spaces.  
The Strategy targets all kinds of data, not only industrial 
but also personal data. Therefore, any policy measure 
foreseen in the Strategy which involves access to 
personal data must fully comply with the European data 
protection legislation.  

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  In particular, it is important that any personal data 
sharing is carried out based on an appropriate legal basis 
(such as legislation laying down a legal obligation) and 
with appropriate safeguards.  
•  Furthermore, support for measures giving individuals 
control over their data is also foreseen in the Strategy, 
through the development of concrete tools such as 
personal data spaces. These measures will contribute to 
the effective application of the GDPR. 
•  In that sense, GDPR and future initiatives following 
from the Data Strategy play together. 
 
 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
BACKGROUND 
Processing of health data under GDPR in the Covid-19 context 
•  Health  data  are  considered  as  sensitive  data  under  the  GDPR  and  their  processing  can 
therefore only take place under strict requirements. The GDPR however provides that one 
of  the  legal  grounds  for  processing  such  personal  data  is  public  interest  in  the  area  of 
public  health.  In  this  case,  Union  law  or  Member  State  law  shall  provide  suitable  and 
specific measures to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the concerned individual. 
•  In  particular,  the  GDPR  provides  that  processing  necessary  for  humanitarian  purposes, 
including  for  monitoring  epidemics  and  their  spread  in  situations  of  humanitarian 
emergencies, qualifies as an important ground of public interest. 
•  In short, the GDPR provides for a legal framework for data protection which is fit also in 
time of epidemics. It is not an obstacle to the processing of personal data necessary to 
fight the coronavirus pandemic, it offers enough flexibility provided the conditions and 
appropriate safeguards are in place. However, once the context justifying such processing 
has changed (e.g. after the end of the pandemic), then the necessity and proportionality of 
the processing will have to be reassessed. 
One-stop-shop mechanism and consistency mechanism 
•  
The  GDPR  provides  for a "one-stop-shop" mechanism. This means that companies 
conducting cross-border processing activities  only have to deal with one national data 
protection supervisory authority (‘the Lead Supervisory Authority’). 
 
•  A co-operation and consistency mechanism allows for a coordinated approach between all 
the data protection authorities involved. In accordance with Article 60 GDPR, in cross-
border cases the Lead supervisory authority submits its draft decision to all concerned data 
protection authorities for their opinion and shall take into account their views. Any 
concerned supervisory authority may raise a relevant and reasoned objection to the draft 
decision. If the Lead supervisory authority disagrees, it shall submit the matter to the 
consistency mechanism which will require a decision from the European Data Protection 
Board. 
 
 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
SCHREMS II 
•  I would like to thank Business Europe for its useful 
contributions during the roundtable on international data 
flows on 21 September.  
•  The aim of that meeting was to understand better what is 
happening on the ground and how this can inform our 
work.  
•  In response to the judgment, the Commission has several 
work streams. 
•  Our first objective is to guarantee the protection of 
personal data transferred outside the EU in full 
compliance with the Court’s ruling.  
•  This also means that companies should be able to rely on 
solid transfer mechanisms. That’s what you rightly 
expect, as you need to transfer data as part of your daily 
operations.  
•  That is also why exploratory talks are ongoing on the 
best way to address the issues raised by the Court with 
our US counterparts, as indicated in the joint press 
statement I issued with US Commerce Secretary Ross. 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  But we also have to recognise that the judgment raises 
complex issues, related to an area – national security – 
that, by its nature, is particularly sensitive. 
•  Therefore, these are not issues that can be resolved 
though a “quick fix”. We need sustainable solutions that 
deliver legal certainty in full compliance with the 
judgment.  
•  In parallel, we are finalising the modernisation of the 
Standard Contractual Clauses.   
•  We have been working on this in the past months to 
fully align the SCCs with the GDPR and to ensure that 
they are adapted to the realities of today’s digital 
economy.  
•  After the Court’s judgment, we are now integrating in 
our draft the additional clarifications provided by the 
Court on the conditions under which SCCs can be used.  
•  Because the SCCs are so widely used and are 
particularly useful for smaller businesses, finalising this 
work is a top priority for us. 
•  At the same time, we don’t want speed over quality. We 
want to get this right and ensure that the new SCCs are 

 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
truly useful to assist companies in their compliance 
efforts. 
•  On that basis, we intend to launch the adoption process 
in the coming weeks. 
•  Of course, it will also be important that our work on the 
new SCCs is aligned with the guidance that is currently 
being prepared by the European Data Protection Board. 
•  We are therefore working closely with the data 
protection authorities, which have announced that, 
following the first FAQs issued immediately after the 
judgment, more detailed guidance will be prepared.  
•  I believe that it is important that such guidance is, as 
much as possible operational, based on practical steps 
and concrete examples, to assist companies in their 
compliance efforts. My services are advocating for such 
an approach within the Board. 
 
 

 
10 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
DEFENSIVES 
There is no guidance, companies do not know how to comply with the 

judgment. 
•  We understand that  there is a need for guidance and have urged the 
EDPB to accelerate its work on this. It is essential that there is a uniform 
interpretation and approach across the EU, and this can only be provided 
by the EDPB. 
•  We already worked with the Board on the first guidance document and 
will continue to push for guidance that is as operational and practical as 
possible. 
•  In our own work on the modernisation of the SCCs, we are also trying to 
operationalise some of the clarifications provided by the Court, which we 
believe will be helpful to assist companies in their compliance efforts. 
•  At the same time, also the new SCCs will of course have to be used in 
line with the conditions set by the Court. 
•  This is also why the input we receive from industry is so important. It 
allows us to understand your needs and learn from your experience on the 
ground. 
•  The information we receive from you in turn feeds into our work, on the 
SCCs and with the EDPB. 
What are your views on the White Paper issued by the US Department of 
Commerce on the Schrems II Decision? 
•  While I understand that it may be helpful for companies that transfer data 
to the US to be provided with more information about the US legal 
framework, it should also be clear that trying to re-litigate the case is not 
going to help anyone. 
•  The Court has set a standard, and whether we like it or not, that standard 
has to be complied with, by companies, by data protection authorities and 
by the Commission in its contacts with the US. 
•  In our view, the focus of our efforts  should be on exploring possible 
solutions to the issues identified by the Court, not on revisiting or “re-
litigating” parts of the judgment. 
To avoid that it becomes too difficult to transfer personal data, the 
derogations under the GDPR should be interpreted more broadly. 
•  The judgment has not changed the situation on this aspect: derogations 
remain what they are, i.e. exceptions to the general rule. 
11 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  While they of course continue to be available for specific transfers, they 
cannot become the default solution. This would be contrary to the 
rationale of the GDPR as interpreted also by the Court.  
•  Moreover, it would leave individuals  without any protections, which 
would be a rather paradoxical outcome of a judgment that focuses on the 
need to ensure some continuity of protection when data is transferred 
abroad. 
[Background: the GDPR contains certain statutory grounds for transfers in specific 
situations (e.g. where an individual has given consent to the transfer or where the 
transfer is necessary on public interest grounds). These so-called ‘derogations’ can in 
principle only be relied on if there is no adequacy decision and it is not possible to 
provide safeguards by other means. As there is no requirement to provide any 
safeguards when relying on such ‘derogations’, they are only meant as exceptions, i.e. 
for limited, non-systematic transfers. After the Schrems II judgment, there have been 
calls from companies to reconsider this interpretation (which follows from the GDPR 
itself and guidance from the European  Data Protection Board) and also allow 
regular, systematic transfers on the basis of the derogations. However, this would 
mean that personal data that is currently protected by SCCs or other tools would no 
longer benefit from any protections when transferred abroad.] 
There should be an enforcement moratorium. 
•  Such an enforcement moratorium is not possible under the GDPR. This 
has also been made clear by the EDPB in public statements in the past. 
•  Data protection authorities have discretion when it comes to launching 
ex officio investigations, but are required to act when receiving 
complaints from individuals. 
•  As you probably have seen, several complaints have already been lodged 
by civil society that are currently being looked at. 
•  Of course, the data protection authorities also understand that this is a 
difficult situation, but they will not accept negligence. 
•  Some key steps that companies can take include mapping their data 
transfers, carrying out risk assessments, where necessary implement 
additional safeguards, etc. 
•  And of course, all of this should be properly documented to demonstrate 
due diligence if it comes to a dialogue with a data protection authority. 
•  In fact, this is something that any case already follows from the 
accountability principle under the GDPR. 
•  At the same time, we also recognise that these first investigations (and 
potential enforcement action) make guidance even more important, to 
12 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
allow companies to comply, but also to avoid fragmented decisions by 
data protection authorities. 
•  This is why we have urged the EDPB to accelerate its work. 
We are concerned about calls for data localisation 
•  We have repeatedly confirmed the Commission’s commitment to 
facilitate data flows. 
•  This is notably reflected my statements in the European Parliament, the 
Communication on two years of GDPR adopted in June and the 
Commission’s Data Strategy. 
•  That is also what we continue to pursue in our engagement with 
international partners in different fora to promote safe and free data 
flows. This includes for instance the very promising work at the OECD 
with the US and Japan building on the Data Free Flow with Trust 
initiative. 
•  For us, developing strong privacy safeguards and promoting free flow of 
data are not opposite objectives, but rather complementary ones that can 
reinforce each other.   
 
 
13 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
DSA AND ILLEGAL CONTENT 
•  The internet has provided unprecedented possibilities for 
new business models to thrive and for individuals from 
all over the world to communicate and share ideas and 
engage in discussions – also in area of the world where 
such possibilities traditionally have been very limited. 
•  But, this Gutenberg-moment has also carried with it a 
number of challenges.  
•  The problem of illegal content online is not going away. 
The societal costs and suffering caused to the individual 
victims of the spread of criminal content such as illegal 
hate speech, terrorist content and child sexual abuse 
material is a very serious concern to the European 
Commission.  
•  Also, we want to ensure that consumers are effectively 
protected online  and  that no  illegal products  are 
available. 
•  The Digital Services Act will look at the platforms 
liability and set out a comprehensive approach towards 
all forms of illegal content online.  The policy approach 
that we formulate will have to combine and reconcile a 
number of fundamental rights, including right to 
14 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
freedom of expression, freedom to conduct a business as 
well as the freedom of establishment and provision of 
services. 
•  This is a complex file which requires evidenced 
policymaking to ensure we get it right. The Commission 
if currently analysing the results of the public 
consultation that closed on 8 September 2020.   
•  I can assure you that we will carefully assess all 
pertinent factors to ensure a proposal that allows us to 
effectively tackle illegal content while protecting 
Fundamental Rights.  
 
 
15 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
BACKGROUND 
As part of the European Digital Strategy, the European Commission has announced a Digital 
Services Act package to strengthen the Single Market for digital services and foster 
innovation and competitiveness of the European online environment. 
The legal framework for digital services has been unchanged since the adoption of the e-
Commerce Directive in the year 2000. Ever since, this Directive has been the foundational 
cornerstone for regulating digital services in the European Union. 
 
However, the online world and the daily use of digital means are changing every day. Over 
the last 20 years, many new ways to communicate, shop or access information online have 
been developed, and those ways are constantly evolving. Online platforms have brought 
significant benefits for consumers and innovation, as well as  wide-ranging efficiencies in the 
European Union’s internal market. These online platforms facilitate cross-border trading 
within and outside the Union and open entirely new business opportunities to a variety of 
European businesses and traders by facilitating their expansion and access to new markets 
Although new services, technologies and business models have brought many opportunities 
in the daily life of European citizens, they have also created new risks to citizens and society 
at large, exposing them to a new range of illegal goods, activities or content. 
The new Digital Services Act package should modernise the current legal framework for 
digital services by means of two main pillars: 
•  First, the Commission would propose clear rules framing the responsibilities of digital 
services to address the risks faced by their users and to protect their rights. The legal 
obligations would ensure a modern system of cooperation for the supervision of 
platforms and guarantee effective enforcement. 
•  Second, the Digital Services Act package would propose ex ante rules covering large 
online platforms acting as gatekeepers, which now set the rules of the game for their 
users and their competitors. The initiative should ensure that those platforms behave 
fairly and can be challenged by new entrants and existing competitors, so that 
consumers have the widest choice and the Single Market remains competitive and 
open to innovations. 
As a part of a robust and active consultation process, the Commission has initiated a public 
consultation to support the work in analysing and collecting evidence for scoping the specific 
issues that may require an EU-level intervention. All European and non-European citizens 
and organisations are welcome to contribute to this consultation. The consultation was open 
until 8 September 2020. 
 
 
 
16 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (incl. liability) 
 

•  The AI White Paper that the Commission published on 
19 February 2020 pursues a human-centric approach. It 
sets out regulatory options to foster an ecosystem of 
excellence and trust.  
•  Following the White Paper, the Commission plans to 
present a legislative proposal in the first quarter of 2021. 
•  To help Europe pursue excellence in the area of AI, the 
White Paper presents initiatives including investments, 
coordination of research and fostering relevant skills. 
•  As regards trust, the EU already has fundamental rights 
legislation relevant for AI, in particular on data 
protection, privacy, non-discrimination and equality; and 
relevant laws on consumer protection, copyright and the 
functioning of law enforcement authorities.  
•  The effectiveness of this acquis may be challenged by 
the complexity and opacity of certain AI applications 
(‘black boxes’) which would require highly specialised 
expertise and processes to comprehend and control.  
•  AI may also challenge the effectiveness of current 
national  civil liability rules. To ensure trust and 
17 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
encourage the uptake of AI, it is also important to make 
sure that victims of damage caused by the use of AI use 
are not less compensated than victims of traditional 
products and services. 
•  At the same time, businesses need legal certainty. They 
need to know their liability risks so that they can ensure 
themselves against them. 
•  To address these challenges, the White Paper includes 
documentation-, testing, and accountability-requirements 
to benefit the effective enforcement of existing laws and 
help those who deploy AI systems comply.  
•  In addition, the  elaboration of technical norms, 
standardisation and certification could facilitate 
compliance with higher level legal requirements. 
•  The requirements will be proportionate to the risk to 
rights or safety of people.  
•  We also need to enable supervisory authorities to keep 
fulfilling their mandate where AI is used. They need 
adequate capacities and they need to work together. 
•  An open public consultation on the contents of the AI 
White Paper was open from 19 February to 14 June 
18 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
2020. The Commission is now analysing more than 1200 
responses.  
•  The opaqueness of some applications is often identified 
as a challenge, and there is a desire to always know who 
is responsible for automated outcomes. 
•  Funding and equipment of authorities is also identified 
as a priority and some ask for centres of expertise.   
•  Most of the respondents to the public consultation were 
in favour of adapting national liability rules for all or for 
specific AI applications to better ensure proper 
compensation and a fair allocation of liability. The 
majority of businesses in this category were SMEs. 
•  The EP will soon adopt resolutions providing detailed 
recommendations for the Commission on ethics and 
fundamental rights and on a civil liability regime for AI-
systems.  The respective reports were adopted in the 
JURI committee on 28 September. 
 
 
19 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
DEFENSIVES 
What are the main findings of the public consultation? 
•  The high participation consisting in 1200 replies and 400 submissions of self-standing 
position papers shows that this initiative meets a lot of interest throughout different 
groups of stakeholders. 
•  The Commission received feedback inter alia from civil society organisations and 
individual citizens, industry, academia, and public authorities. 
•  14% of the responses came from outside the EU27.  
•  A large majority of the respondents is concerned about fundamental rights threats due 
to the use of AI.  
•  The opaqueness of some applications is often identified as a challenge in this regard. 
•  Funding and equipment of authorities were identified as a priority and some ask for 
centres of expertise.   
 
How did stakeholders position themselves as regards the proposals put forward by the 

Commission in its White Paper? 
•  When it comes to the question how an application is categorised as risky, there was a 
clear preference to focus on concrete use cases rather than looking at sectors for the 
determination. 
•  There is general support for transparency and clear identification of who is 
responsible for automated results.  Most stakeholders agree with importance of 
accountability, transparency, documentation. 
•  When it comes to prescriptive requirements that would interfere with how 
applications may be built, there was some reluctance, notably among industry 
stakeholders. 
 
What are the next steps following the White Paper and the consultation? 

•  The Commission plans to present a legislative proposal in the first quarter of 2021.  
•  Currently, the Commission services are working to further concretise the elements 
from the White Paper to develop appropriate and proportionate binding rules for the 
use of risky automation.  
 
How you will make sure that the framework will not hamper innovation and 
competiveness in the EU compared to other regions of the world 
•  Promoting innovation is not only about regulation, but also about funding, fosrting 
investment and networking.  
•  We need to create an enabling environment for innovation. The Commission pursues 
a whole range of activities that are presented in the AI White Paper under the heading 
of the “ecosystem of excellence”. 
•  Regulation does not only limit what actors can do. It also creates a level playing field 
and can foster legitimate trust, which is a very important factor for the uptake of the 
development and use of new technologies. We need the right kind of innovation. 
20 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  Developing AI on the basis of shared European values can be a competitive 
advantage. 
 
How will you guarantee trustworthy AI? 

•  We already have a solid framework of legislation at EU and national level to protect 
fundamental rights and to ensure safety and consumer rights. To prevent breaches of 
these rules and to ensure that possible breaches can be addressed by national 
authorities, risky applications need to be well documented and provide an adequate 
degree of transparency.  
•  The White Paper sets out concrete requirements for the development and deployment 
of high-risk AI: 
o  to be technically robust and safe, 
o  the data sets used for training must be appropriate for the purpose in order to 
avoid unfair bias,  
o  appropriate records of the data used to train the algorithm must be ensured, 
o  individuals should be clearly informed when dealing with an AI system, and  
o  sufficient human oversight must be foreseen in order to ensure that the AI 
system does not undermine human autonomy. 
 
How do you define Artificial Intelligence? 

•  There is globally no consensus on a definition of AI.  
•  Defining a set of technology is one thing, defining, which technology-challenges we 
need to address is another. We need to target all uses of technology that are 
challenging fundamental rights or safety. The opacity of automation plays an 
important role in this regard. 
•  The White Paper refers to the definition of AI adopted by the Commission in April 
2018 and the definition prepared by High Level Expert Group.  
•  The White Paper mostly focuses on machine learning because it is what makes AI 
most opaque and in certain situations unpredictable. Machine learning is a subset of 
AI and implies that algorithms are “trained” on data. 
 
Will the EU regulate facial recognition for remote identification? 
•  EU data protection rules already prohibit in principle the processing of biometric data 
for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, except under specific 
conditions.  
•  Specifically, remote identification can only take place for reasons of substantial public 
interest. It must be based on EU or national law, the use has to be duly justified, 
proportionate and subject to adequate safeguards.  
•  Facial recognition for remote biometric identification is currently the exception. 
Following the consultation on the AI White Paper, the Commission reflects  on  the 
necessity of further regulatory steps. 
 
 
21 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
AI White Paper 
In the AI White Paper, the Commission proposes a framework for trustworthy Artificial 
Intelligence, following a balanced approach  based on excellence and trust that aims to 
address high-risk AI systems without putting too much burden on those who develop and 
deploy less risky ones.  The White Paper mostly focuses on machine learning because it is 
what makes AI most opaque and in certain situations unpredictable, but it does not exclude 
other AI systems, such as expert systems, which follow pre-defined rules. Expert systems are 
fully interpretable. Their results (output) can precisely be determined based on their 
determined rules and the input data. 
Regarding the pursuit of excellence, in partnership with the private and the public sector, the 
ambition is to mobilise resources along the entire value chain and to create incentives to 
accelerate deployment of AI, including by smaller and medium-sized enterprises. This 
includes working with Member States and the research community, and attracting and 
keeping talent.  
Regarding the ecosystem of trust, the Commission pursues a human-centric approach to AI. 
This means first and foremost ensuring that AI applications comply with EU law that protects 
consumer and fundamental rights. For example, gender bias in algorithms or training data 
used for recruitment AI systems could lead to unjust and discriminatory outcomes, which 
would be illegal under EU non-discrimination laws. It is important to prevent breaches of 
fundamental rights and consumer laws and if they occur, to ensure that those breaches can be 
addressed by the national authorities. The complexity and opacity of certain AI systems 
makes it difficult to see if they comply with fundamental rights obligations. The 
establishment of accountability and transparency requirements, combined with improved 
enforcement capacities, will ensure that legal compliance is considered at the development 
stage of AI systems and, in case of a breach, such requirements will allow national authorities 
to investigate whether the use of AI complied with EU law. On this basis, the White Paper 
sets out concrete requirements for the development and deployment of high-risk AI systems. 
The definition of high-risk AI applications will be further concretized. Some uses are critical 
in all sectors, e.g. use of AI for recruitment of for certain consumer services such as financial 
credits. 
In relation to the addressees of the legal requirements that would apply in relation to high-risk 
AI applications, obligations are to be distributed among the many actors involved in the 
lifecycle of an AI system (e.g. the developer, the deployer, the person who uses an AI-
system, [maintenance] service providers etc.). Obligations should be addressed to the actor(s) 
best placed to address potential risks. While developers may be best placed to address risks 
arising from the development phase, their ability to control risks during the use phase may be 
more limited. In that case, the deployers should be subject to the relevant obligation.  
Regarding the geographic scope, the requirements should be applicable to all relevant 
economic operators providing AI-enabled products or services in the EU, regardless of 
whether they are established in the EU or not.  
The White Paper suggests that prior conformity assessments would be necessary to verify and 
ensure that certain requirements applicable to high-risk applications are complied with.  The 
22 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
prior conformity assessment could include procedures for testing, inspection or certification. 
It could include checks of the algorithms and of the data sets used in the development phase. 
In addition, there would also be an ex-post control, for example to verify that an application 
is used in full respect of fundamental rights.  
Depending on a legislative proposal, Member States might need to implement new rules on 
high-risk AI, with the support of the Commission and a network of national authorities to 
ensure coherent implementation. Member States’ existing authorities are very well placed to 
do so. For example there are already authorities that enforce the respect fundamental rights or 
guarantee the safety of cars, toys, cosmetics or medicine. The White Paper acknowledges that 
it would be beneficial to support competent national authorities to enable them to fulfil their 
mandate where AI is used. As far as the compliance with data protection rules is concerned, 
the national Data Protection Authorities have been provided with increased powers under the 
GDPR. 
 
 

 
23 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
SUSTAINABLE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 
•  We have crossed the sustainability boundaries  of 
value creation and now the sustainability crisis is 
coupled with the COVID crisis. We want to recover 
from this in a sustainablecompetitive and just way. 
•  The role and the responsibility of the business sector in 
reaching these sustainability and recovery objectives 
cannot be overestimated
•  It is not enough if frontrunner  companies change 
voluntarily, selectively and at their own pace. We need 
to  change  the  mainstream,  more  systematically  and 
urgently.
 
•  This requires improving the governance of companies 
and the impacts in their supply chains, and I am 
determined to  propose next year  an  initiative  on 
sustainable corporate governance. 
•  The initiative would address  directors’ duties,  due 
diligence  in the supply chains, as well as other 
elements
  of corporate governance (e.g. incentives by 
remuneration, involvement of sustainability expertise 
and engagement with stakeholders). 
24 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  We aim at a framework that is clear and coherent, with 
appropriate enforcement
•  I am convinced that a broad based  and  horizontal 
measure – covering all sectors – would bring the most 
benefits. 
•  We would pay special attention to the possible – direct 
and indirect –  impacts on small and medium-sized 
enterprises,
  including  costs  as well as benefits  for 
them. 
•  We are also examining how to cover some third-
country companies that are active in the EU. 
•   We will soon be launching  [date of launch still to be 
confirmed, if before or after this address]  an  open 
public consultation
, asking specific detailed questions. 
We are looking forward to receiving your contribution 
as well.  
 
 
 
25 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
DEFENSIVES 
Due diligence: 
BusinessEurope has strong concerns regarding the possible introduction of 

an EU mandatory framework for supply chain due diligence. 
•  The due diligence study conducted for the Commission shows that the 
voluntary “corporate social responsibility” approach, supported by 
reporting on a “comply or explain basis”, failed: only one third of the 
300 companies responding to the survey claim to have due diligence 
processes in place to identify and mitigate negative human and 
environmental impact in their supply chains. Other studies show even 
worse figures (for example a very recent German survey shows that 15-
19% of companies have due diligence processes). 
•  A large majority of individual company respondents (over 300) to the due 
diligence study survey expressed support  for mandatory due diligence 
rules. 
•  EU harmonisation may bring benefits over the development of 
national initiatives which would lead to a fragmentation of 
approaches and which could result in extra costs.  
•  The experience with the French law shows that a non-negotiable legal 
standard can contribute to changing the regulatory and behavioural 
environment in the third country  of the supply chain. Such positive 
impact of an EU standard would be even higher. Moreover, our 
initiative is meant to be part of a smart mix and could be accompanied 
by other measures, which foster a better environment in third countries 
(trade agreements, other support measures). 
It is crucial to base any action on existing international standards and 
guidelines. 
•  Our initiative would build upon existing UN and OECD standards and 
guidelines  (the  United Nations’  Guiding Principles on Businesses and 
Human Rights, as well as on the OECD  Guidelines for Multinational 
Enterprises and the related Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible 
Business Conduct). It would also take into account the experiences with 
existing national and EU regulation. Furthermore, we are exploring how 
to align the due diligence duty to international human rights and 
environmental commitments (fundamental and labour rights conventions, 
Paris climate agreement, etc.)    
26 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
Would a due diligence duty not put EU companies at  a  competitive 
disadvantage vis-a-vis third country companies?  
•  Although operating in the EU without proper establishment is relatively 
rare, we are looking into possibilities to cover also some third country 
companies not formally established but operating in the EU.  
•  Strengthening sustainability chapters in trade agreements,  which is 
subject to ongoing reflections, would help levelling  the playing field 
globally. 
•  The due diligence study also shows that no significant  negative 
distortions for EU companies are expected  which would result from 
setting up and operating necessary due diligence processes. We will 
analyse other costs possibly linked to reorganisations of supply chains. 
Many business operators, whilst calling for due diligence legislation,  also 
call for actions to take place in producing countries: can the Commission 
play a role on both ends?  
•  The Commission services having competence in complementary areas 
on this matter cooperate in this process. Other policies, such as 
development cooperation, neighbourhood policy, trade and external 
relations contribute with support, funding, dialogue, agreements. There is 
also an ongoing reflection about how to make trade agreements support 
the transition better. These policies reinforce each other. 
A new legislative framework should not invert the responsibilities of states 
and companies. 
•  To ensure that human rights are protected, States need to establish 
specific legal requirements. Companies (i.e. legal persons) shall respect 
human rights as much as physical persons, this has already been agreed in 
the UN 10 years ago when clarified in the UN Guiding Principles on 
Businesses and Human Rights. The commentaries of human rights 
covenants state that States shall legislate to require companies to respect 
such rights across their value chain. This is the way to ensure that States 
provide an effective protection framework for such rights.    
Possible legislation should take into account that the COVID crisis heavily 
disrupted global value chains and the challenges in rebuilding them. 
•  We will carefully analyse cost impacts and pay particular attention to the 
needs of SMEs. 
27 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  Our public consultation will ask a detailed question about how SMEs 
burden could be reduced.   
Multinational companies often operate in challenging circumstances, for 
example because of conflict, rule of law gaps or weak local governance. 
•  Properly implemented due diligence processes help directors identify 
the sustainability risks  and  impacts  of the company, allowing them to 
manage those risks and address negative impacts better
Will a possible EU law on due diligence have a limited scope with regard to 
supply chains? It is extremely complex for large multinationals to ensure 
full control at all levels of their supply chain, in particular those beyond 
tier one and downstream . 
•  The aim is to ensure the right balance here: the rules should be effective 
and should not be easy to circumvent. Human rights and environmental 
harm occurs more often beyond tier one, so covering only tier one 
suppliers would jeopardise the effectiveness of the measure. The French 
law also goes beyond tier one. In addition, such rule would also be very 
easy to circumvent putting the legitimacy of the measure in question.   
•  However, there is an embedded flexibility in due diligence as it is 
inherently  risk-based  and  requires continuous improvement. The 
company should identify which supply chain is the most risky and 
prioritise the most serious issues first.     
Any framework on due diligence should be based on an obligation of means 
rather than obligation of results. Companies should be exonerated from 
liability if they comply with a due diligence process standard. 
•  This is a balancing exercise: it is important to make sure that companies 
not only establish processes but also implement them efficiently.  
•  We hope our public consultation will inform us what can be added to a 
process requirement and also ensure the necessary legal certainty for 
companies. 
A potential new reporting requirement  should not overlap with the 
requirements under the Non-Financial Reporting Directive. 
•  We would like to ensure that the non-financial reports provide 
stakeholders all the information they need to monitor companies and 
directors, and –  eventually  –  to  hold them to account, with regard to 
their duties in relation to sustainability. 
28 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  We will pay particular attention to the consistency and the links between 
this initiative and the review of the NFRD. 
The level of detail of a due diligence legislation should be proportionate to 
provide clarity for business, but without encouraging a tick-box approach. 
•  Care will be taken to ensure that the possible EU law and its obligations 
are  sufficiently clear, also in order to prevent that it generates 
unnecessary litigation. At the same time, it should be flexible enough so 
that companies can adapt to their specificities. 
•  We are also exploring the possibility to combine level 1 and 2 measures 
and legislation combined with non-binding guidelines
A possible mandatory approach on due diligence will impose bigger 
burdens on SMEs. Also, obligations will be imposed in any event on SMEs 
downstream, as part of the supply chain of companies that are within the 
scope. Any EU measure needs to take this into account. 
•  I agree that we need to alleviate the burden on SMEs. For instance, a 
lighter regime, more detailed guidance and a gradual phasing in of the 
new obligations are all possible options being explored. 
•  We also need to take into account that SMEs can be active in high-risks 
sectors, but they  would also see benefits  of the new rules: they may 
become better candidates to become a supplier of an EU company, they 
would themselves reap the benefits of addressing sustainability issues 
properly, they could get access to finance more easily etc. 
Directors’ duties: 
Companies are already taking account of diverse stakeholders’ interests 

alongside the financial interests of shareholders. It is a false assumption 
that shareholder value creation is necessarily contrary to a stakeholder-
oriented approach. No EU legal requirements are necessary. 
•  A recent study conducted for us on directors’ duties shows that there is a 
growing predominant focus in corporate governance on  short-term 
financial performance.  
•  Companies today pay dividends to the shareholders (or ensure payouts 
to shareholders through share buy-back  programmes)  before they 
secure the resilience and long-term viability of the company. They do 
not invest enough  into  medium-to-long-term goals:  into innovation, 
new technologies and the workforce. 
29 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
•  This  harms their productivity, innovativeness, sustainability, 
competitiveness. 
•  This is despite the fact that in all EU Member States directors owe their 
duties to the company and not to the shareholders, even if there are 
differences in national company law requirements
•  So we are considering how to make it clear in the law what is expected 
from the directors. This would also empower directors to withstand short-
term pressure.   
•   We should also clarify that directors need to have a strategic view over 
all sustainability matters. 
•  Remuneration policies need to be looked at to ensure that the incentives 
of the directors are aligned with the interests of the company. 
In certain cases the interests of some stakeholders may be conflicting with 
each other (e.g. in restructuring, recovery, insolvency, merger or division). 
The company needs flexibility to balance those stakeholders’ interests. 
•  All stakeholders’ interests as well as the long-term interest of the 
company should always be considered in board decisions. We do not aim 
at making a hierarchy between the different interests, but focusing 
predominantly on one interest (i.e. short-term financial) should not be the 
norm. 
It would be too early to amend the recent Shareholder Rights Directive 2. 
Transferring more competences from the board to the shareholders would 
disrupt well-functioning corporate governance structures. 
•  Transferring more rights to shareholders is not the guiding principle of 
our initiative. The main objective would now be to take better account 
of other stakeholders’ interest, not only that of shareholders, and to 
explore the possibilities of enabling other stakeholders as well to hold 
directors to account 
 
 
30 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
BACKGROUND 
The  Commission’s 2018 Sustainable Finance Action Plan  announced consultative and 
analytical work to prepare a possible policy initiative, undertaken by two DG JUST studies, 
on  due diligence requirements in the supply chain  (published February 2020) and on 
directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance (published July 2020). Evidence 
collected show an increasing trend of corporate short-termism and failure of voluntary 
action and reporting in incentivising the change of companies’ behaviour. 
In a number of strategies implementing the European Green Deal as well as the Recovery 
Plan, the Commission announced a new initiative on sustainable corporate governance for 
2021. It may take form of a legislative proposal “addressing human rights, and environmental 
duty of care and mandatory due diligence across economic value chains”.  
The Inception Impact Assessment (“roadmap”) on the initiative is open for consultation until 
8 October. A public consultation was planned to be launched still in September. 
In parallel, the EP’s JURI committee is preparing 2 reports on the topics covered but he 
sustainable corporate governance initiative; namely, an own initiative legislative report (INL) 
on "Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate accountability" (rapporteur Lara Wolters, 
S&D, NL) and an own initiative report (INI) on  "Sustainable Corporate Governance" 
(rapporteur Pascal Durand, Renew, FR). Two studies are being prepared for the EP to 
underpin these reports.  
In the meantime, more and more MS  are having laws, initiatives and plans  to reform 
corporate governance measures (DE, AT, FI, FR, NL, DK, IT, BE, LU, SE); the FR Duty of 
Vigilance Law  being the first and most prominent, and DE  Supply Chain Act 
considerations being the most recent. 
As regards the position of stakeholder, during the consultative and analytical work that 
preceded the announcement of the initiative, civil society has exhibited very strong support 
in numerous instances, while business associations  naturally expressed initial hesitations 
about possible mandatory rules, however are recently also starting to support the voice of 
large individual businesses who have repeatedly spoken out in EU fora and issued multiple 
calls in support of EU level action, to stop free-riding. 
 
 
31 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
Consumer Affairs in relation to the Recovery Plan 
Product Safety 

•  Artificial Intelligence  and new technology products 
have  great potential from both the industry's and 
consumers' point of view.  
•  But products using these technologies may present new 
risks, such as for example, cyber-threats affecting safety.  
•  It is necessary that producers make sure that these 
products  are safe for consumers, which  is also in the 
interest of the wide take-up of the technology.  
•  Furthermore, consumers  buy increasingly online
in 2019,  63% of EU  consumers  purchased online. 
Consumer products should be safe whether they are sold 
to consumers online or offline.  
•  The Commission is gathering evidence on the size of 
these problems and how they can be tackled. This will 
feed into the evaluation and impact assessment of the 
General Product Safety Directive.  
 
 

 
32 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
DEFENSIVES 
When is the General Product Safety Directive proposal expected? 
•  As announced in the revised Commission 2020 Work Programme, the 
new proposal is expected for Q2 2021. 
What is the General Product Safety Directive proposal going to focus on? 
•  The Commission will carry out an impact assessment and evaluation 
of the Directive to assess its implementation and how it can be further 
improved. The Commission has already preliminary identified several 
areas that need to be tackled and for what we will gather further 
evidence, just to mention a few: 
o  New digital challenges to product safety, in particular regarding 
online product safety market surveillance as well as challenges of 
new technology products that could cause cybersecurity risks in 
relation to safety, personal security risks and that self-evolve. 
o  Enforcement issues: There are still too many dangerous products 
available to consumers on the EU market. In 2019 over 
2 200 dangerous products were notified in the EU Rapid Alert 
System, but the actual number is likely to be much higher since not 
all consumer products on the EU market can be screened by market 
surveillance authorities. There are other enforcement issues 
tentatively identified, for example, product traceability is 
insufficient and the effectiveness of recalls of dangerous products 
from consumers is low. 
Do you intend to regulate the responsibilities of online operators? Is there 
going to be any overlap with the Digital Services Act? 
•  The safety of products sold online will be considered as one of the 
issues to be tackled by the revision of the General Product Safety 
Directive, but also for the Digital Service Act. Within these 
discussions, the framework should be assessed including the 
responsibilities of online operators in order to ensure consumer 
protection as well as a level-playing field for companies. Commission 
services will coordinate to ensure coherence between the two 
initiatives. 
 
 
 
33 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
The New Consumer Agenda 
•  Consumer spending will represent an important part of 
the recovery. We must reinforce consumers’ confidence, 
and, at the same time, we should not impose an undue 
heavy burden on companies. 

•  Only a coherent and comprehensive EU consumer 
policy  will be able to address new vulnerabilities  and 
contribute to the collective recovery under the green and 
digital transitions; thus, the New Consumer Agenda (to 
be adopted on 18 November) will focus on key priority 
areas: 
Empowering consumers in the green and digital 
transitions
Protecting vulnerable consumers
Enforcing consumers’ rights; and 
International cooperation
•  The New Consumer Agenda is currently open to public 
consultation, until 6 October;  we would very much 
welcome the input of Business Europe to this strategy.  
 
 
34 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
Green Consumption Pledges 
•  I am launching, under the Consumer Agenda a new non-
regulatory initiative, the Green Consumption Pledges, 
which  will be developed in cooperation with the 
industry, on a voluntary basis. This initiative aims to 
contribute to a sustainable economic recovery and to 
empower consumers to make greener choices.  
•  We are starting the green consumption pledges first with 
a few pilot projects with pioneer companies. The 
objective is to bring on board in the years to come a large 
number of companies in all sectors.  
•  If you have, within your members, companies that would 
like to be involved in the project, in the first phase or 
later on, we would be delighted to work with them. 
 
 
35 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
DEFENSIVES 
The New Consumer Agenda 

How could you ensure that an agenda of such a high ambitions could 
concretely work, in terms of resources and practical implementation? 
•  The agenda is the tool to formulate our clear and long-term vision under 
which to identify and the funding under the new MFF. The priorities of 
the new Single Market Programme will have to support the objectives of 
the agenda. 
•  As well, I intend to call upon the Member States to align their funding 
streams to their consumer policy priorities. Each country will be invited 
to closely involve key stakeholders, including businesses and consumer 
organisations in the implementation of its consumer policy. 
 
BACKGROUND 

The New Consumer Agenda 
The adoption of the Consumer Agenda is planned for November 2020, while the three 
flanking initiatives – i.e. a proposal aiming to empower consumers in the green transition, a 
review of the Directive on consumer credit agreements for consumers (2008/48/EC), and a 
review of the General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC) will be adopted in 2021.  
The New Consumer Agenda should address both post-COVID consumer situation and 
longer-term consumer policy challenges. Issues range from rogue traders abusing the fast 
evolving markets and offering products at excessive prices, to advertisements with bogus 
claims or even offers of unsafe products. These emerge at the time of increased consumer 
vulnerabilities.  
There is, therefore, a need to adapt the European consumer policy framework to market 
evolutions, including the rapid digital and green transitions. In doing so, it is important to 
avoid new obligations in consumer legislation that could generate undue extra burden or costs 
on companies grappling with the impact of the crisis.  
A balanced policy requires a holistic approach to consumer agendas, taking into account all 
emerging issues also linked to the pandemic’s effects at large. Vulnerable consumers are and 
will be most likely to suffer disproportionately from any socio-economic downturn resulting 
from the coronavirus pandemic. Such vulnerability may no longer stem primarily from health 
or socio-economical disadvantages. New sources of consumer vulnerability increasingly 
extend to, for instance, situations of over-indebtedness, reduced digital literacy, geographical 
remoteness, etc. 
The five key priority areas remain valid also post-COVID: consumer empowerment in both 
the green and the digital transitions, consumer vulnerabilities (including in financial 
services), enforcement of EU law, and international cooperation.  
36 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
Three cross-cutting themes need to be address in each priority area: trust and transparency of 
responsibilities between authorities, consumers and businesses; better information to 
consumers and fighting false information; ensuring consumers feel safe and reassured in the 
new consumer policy framework.  
It will be important for all Member States to enhance action on these elements, and the 
cooperation with the Commission and the other Member States, for an improved coherence of 
policy priorities and implementing measures  
This strategic Commission Communication will also serve as the chapeau for several 
legislative proposals which will be made reference to in the Communication and adopted 
in 2021: 
1. 
Revision of Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety (GPSD) 
The aim of the revision is to ensure all non-food consumer products on the EU market are 
safe and to ensure a level-playing field for all businesses online and offline. This would allow 
to maintain the “safety net role” of the Directive. Among other aspects, it aims to address 
product safety issues linked to new technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence and product 
safety challenges in online sales. The revision also aims at making product recalls more 
effective to keep unsafe products away from consumers and at enhancing market 
surveillance. 
2. 
Revision of Directive 2008/48/EC on consumer credit (CCD) 
In 2019 an evaluation of this Directive showed that it does not fully ensure high standards of 
consumer protection across the EU. The objective to foster a well-functioning internal market 
has only been partially achieved. The revision will extend consumer protection to new (non-
bank) operators (e.g. peer-to-peer lending platforms) and new products (e.g. short-term high-
cost loans), which can lead to over-indebtedness. It will also update the information 
disclosure requirements to reflect the effects of digitalisation and shift to online contracts. It 
will strengthen the effectiveness of creditworthiness assessment rules to make sure the 
assessment is done in the interest of the consumer (as required by the Court of Justice). These 
revisions should provide for a more effective prevention of misusing consumer vulnerabilities 
in the financial sector. 
3. 
New legislative initiative to empower consumers in the green transition 
This initiative, announced in the Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan, aims to 
ensure that consumers are provided with more accurate, clearer and more reliable information 
in order to choose durable, repairable and sustainable products. In order for consumers to 
actively participate in the green transition, they need trustworthy information on the expected 
lifespan and reparability of products, on their sustainability and environmental impact. 
The scope and content of this legislative proposal will build on synergies with various work-
streams that are under way in different Commission services (ENV, GROW, CNECT) in 
response to the Green Deal and the new Circular Economy Action Plan, notably on product 
standards on material efficiency (durability/reparability) and technical methodologies (e.g. 
Product/Organisational Environmental Footprint). 
37 
 

Meeting with Markus Beyrer, Director General, Business Europe 
07/10/2020 16:00 [phone call] 
 
The Open Public Consultation on the whole consumer package started on 30 June will last 
until 6 October -  Link:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12464-A-New-Consumer-Agenda/public-consultation 
 
 
 
Contact(s) – briefing contributions:  
Data protection: 

 (DG JUST.C3), tel.: -
 
Schrems II:
 DG JUST.C.4 
DSA: 
, DG.JUST.C.2 
Artificial Intelligence: 
 DG JUST.C.2, 
, and on liability : 
 
, DG.JUST.A.2 
Sustainable Corportate Governance : 
, DG.JUST.A.3 
Product Safety : 
, DG.JUST.E.4 
Consumer Affairs : 
 DG.JUST.E.1 
 
 

38