hidden_voices

Hidden Voices: The CBI, corporate lobbying and sustainabilityFor example, under ‘proportionality’, the report complains that the UK has a higher Kyototarget for greenhouse gas reductions than most other countries. This is taken to imply abigger “burden” on business. However, it ignores the fact that the “dash for gas” in UK powerstations in the 1990s, when closure of coal mines led to a switch to gas for power, has madeit easier for the UK to achieve its Kyoto target because of the reduced greenhouseemissions.Probably the most contentious claim made by the CBI - and the one that generated the mostheadlines - is that environmental regulations were costing UK business some £4 billionannually. This figure is, of course, completely misleading as at least one third of that amountis invested in new equipment and technology to meet higher environmental standards. TheCBI is deliberately mixing up policy costs such as investment in new technology withadministrative costs of complying with new regulations.Design and delay – problems with implementationThe CBI’s 2004 report is overtly critical of the ‘design’ and ‘timing’ of how regulation isimplemented. The CBI report focuses on the implementation of EU directives and, inparticular, the Landfill Directive. While there may be some grounds for the CBI’s complaintthere have also been plenty of situations in which the CBI has been happy to delay or blockthe implementation of environmental directives.For example, the CBI has campaigned against the Environmental Liability Directive, whichwould make corporations and individuals liable for any damage they have caused to theenvironment. Lobbying by the CBI and other business groups has seen the design andimplementation of this directive delayed for more than 10 years. Further, as a result of suchlobbying, the directive will now cover only 15 per cent of EU land area (based on natureprotectedareas only). It also now contains a number of exemptions and will not requirebusinesses to take out insurance against causing such damage.The CBI claimed that the Environmental Liability Directive “the final nail in the coffin ofmanufacturing” and that it would cost UK business £1.8 billion. 94 Meanwhile the Governmentestimates the figure at around £18–52 million – nearly 40 times lower. 95The evidence does not stand upThe gap between the CBI rhetoric and hard evidence was illustrated in an extract taken fromthe UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee hearings on the ‘Internationalchallenge of climate change: UK leadership in the G8 and EU’ on 18 th January 2005. Thequotes are from Mr Collin Challen who is a member of the Environment Audit Committee andSir Digby Jones representing the CBI.Mr Challen (MP): Which British companies have relocated abroad purely as a consequenceof environmental pressures?Sir Digby Jones (CBI): In terms of they have left somewhere where there is a strictenvironmental regime and cleared off to a place where they can pollute, I would say nil. 96The key question is: do the CBI’s claims that environmental regulations are costing UKbusiness some £4 billion annually actually stand up?A report by Phillip Hampton for the Treasury on reducing the cost to business of regulationfound that current methods used to assess administrative costs associated withimplementing regulation are not credible and inconsistent. This means that the differentmethods of assessing and extrapolating data from samples results in estimates on the totalregulatory burden on business varying widely - from £7 billion to £30 billion. 9742