European Union Action Research Articles

Die Höhen und Tiefen der Europäischen Union als Akteur in der internationalen Klimapolitik

At international climate conferences, the European Union (EU) and its member states both are negotiating partners. The EU signs the treaties to protect the climate, the member states ratify and translate them into national policy. Based on the literature on actorness, we identify different dimensions in which the EU’s actor quality is articulated. Actorness has internal dimensions, such as the transfer of responsibilities, and external dimensions, such as the recognition as a contracting party by other states. Actorness, however, cannot be grasped by analysing institutions alone, but also arises discursively and situationally. We trace EU actorness for four critical points in time in international climate policy and can thus show that actorness in the policy field has increased overall over time, but that the full potential has not yet been exploited. In some dimensions, a temporary decline in actorness could be observed, especially at the Copenhagen summit. The analysis of actorness can also contribute to the explanation of a possible lack of effectiveness.

COVID-19: European Union Actions to Support Tourism

COVID-19: European Union Actions to Support Tourism

Circular economy and environmental disclosure in sustainability reports: Empirical evidence in cosmetic companies

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the content and quality of circular economy (CE) and environmental information (CEEI) disclosure in sustainability reports. Additionally, it provides suggestions for heightening CEEI disclosure. Using the content analysis, we analysed the changes that took place after the European Union (EU) action plan (2015) selecting a sample of sustainable reports in the cosmetic industry in Italy in 2014 and 2019 years. We applied the Climate Disclosure Standard Board (CDSB) framework focused on 12 reporting requirements designed to encourage corporate standardized disclosure of environmental information. Our analysis is performed through a frequency term analysis. Additionally, to measure the general shift of semantic over the two years towards CEEI, a semi‐supervised topic modelling approach was applied, whose topics were obtained by aggregating all terms with a significant variation from the content analysis. Findings show that the recent reports (2019) include terms related to the environment in a slightly more frequent way compared to 2014. We provide stronger evidence of the shift in the origin of the topics, being coherent with the changes introduced from the EU 2015 act, and the requirements of the CDSB framework nevertheless the CE seems still under‐reported in the area of governance, strategy, management and performance. The paper discusses the need for further Institutional (EU directives), regulatory (CDSB framework) and stakeholders' pressure (on companies. Finally, the implementation of an integrated reporting for social, economic and environmental disclosure is suggested as a way to ensure an effective CEEI disclosure.

European Union Legislation and Actions

European Union Legislation and Actions

Digital sovereignty–European Union's action plan needs a common understanding to succeed

AbstractIn the states of the European Union (EU), the question currently raised is to what extent dependence on technologies from the USA and China will have a lasting impact on state sovereignty. The concept of digital sovereignty represents the EU's efforts to compensate for the deficits of the past decades caused by an inadequate positioning of Europe as a location for software and hardware development. Autocratic states use the path of digital autarky, the USA a path of liberalisation and high degrees of openness. In the EU, on the other hand, regulation, data protection and liberal values developed over centuries play a major role in the less pronounced IT development. The path of European states to more digital sovereignty has been addressed politically as an “action plan”, but there is still no common understanding or definition of what digital sovereignty exactly means, where the EU and thus also an individual European state stands. There is a lack of a target and a measurable index as well as evaluated measures derived from it. The present article articulates the basis, namely the common understanding and the definition of digital sovereignty. It places the concepts of digitalisation and state sovereignty in a historical framework and locates them in the current literature, then analyses digital sovereignty as a composite term and places it in the context of current research. Finally, a definition is proposed that can serve as the basis for further research to identify an index of digital sovereignty. This definition can also become the basis for EU legislation to implement the “action plan”.

Inventory and Comparison of Performance Indicators in Circular Economy Roadmaps of the European Countries

European Union (EU) is in the process of transformation toward a circular economy (CE), which is a regenerative growth model that gives back to the planet more than it takes. Member States are key players in this process; therefore, next to the EU Action Plan, they developed national strategies (roadmaps) toward the CE. The paper presents an inventory of performance indicators, which have been indicated in the selected CE national strategies. The EU countries strongly underline the necessity to access the transformation progress with the use of CE indicators at different levels (macro, meso, or/and micro) or for different actions or objectives. There is a lack of one universal indicator which measures a level of the CE transformation at the national level due to the complexity of this issue and the diversity of key sectors and economic actors in the individual countries. There are some proposed indicators that could be used in other countries, to shape national monitoring frameworks by policy-makers. However, to access the transformation process on the European level showing the comparison between different countries, it is recommended to use the CE monitoring framework because it contains the set of CE indicators that provide uniform data and holistic view of all countries in Europe.

A scoping review of the EU's impact on access to medicines in low- and middle-income countries

The European Union (EU) has a potential major influence on patients' global access to medicines. Historically, this influence most notably came through the EU's trade and aid agendas that intentionally targeted foreign markets. Now, the EU's own internal pharmaceutical policy appears to indirectly shape global access to medicines (ex. EU's large-scale Covid-19 vaccine procurement and export bans). To understand the ways the EU's internal and external policies impact on global access to medicines, this Scoping Review synthesises evidence of the EU's global regulatory influence and its impacts on access to medicines in non-EU low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). By searching 8 databases and grey literature, documents published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, or Russian between 1995-2021 that addressed an EU law, regulation, or policy in relation to access to medicines in LMICs were included. This review identifies three mechanisms through which EU action impacts on medicines in LMICs. One, the EU's external, treaty-based agreements with LMICs can affect their pharmaceutical trade, sales, and use. Two, EU's internal market regulation, standards, and methods are used as models or sources of inspiration for pharmaceutical governance in LMICs. Three, ‘soft' forms of EU influence manifest through the EU's technical assistance, its research and development (aid) funding, and its ‘capacity building' activities towards LMIC actors in the field of pharmaceuticals. Examples of impacts of EU action ranged from the development of new medicines primarily for LMICs, to changes in the availability of generics and on medicines spending in LMICs, and the potential for a more efficient yet less autonomous local market approval process. Most evidence of impact was not peer reviewed. This study raises the question of how to support resilient and efficient global pathways for drug development and regulation while still being responsive and accountable to the local public interest.Key messages There are 3 mechanisms through which EU action impacts on medicines in LMICs: treaty-based agreements, EU internal market regulation, and ‘soft' EU influence.EU decision makers need a reliable understanding of how the EU’s internal and external policies impact on pharmaceuticals globally.

2.K. Round table: Everything you always wanted to know about (COVID-19 and) EU-health policy

ObjectiveThere is no European Union (EU) health system but there is an EU health policy and this health policy is rapidly changing due to the COVID-19 responses of the EU and Member States. The aim of this panel discussion is to analyze and put into context the rapid evolvement of EU health policy during the pandemic. This panel discussion will therefore focus on 1) EU public health policy 2) EU action for health 3) the EU Market shaping health 4) the fiscal governance 5) the institutions, processes and powers.BackgroundEU health policy has often been overlooked and was never on the political agenda. COVID-19 and the pandemic response, however, changed this dramatically. EU-health policy has become centre stage followed by bold investments and new regulatory initiatives. Obvious examples are the EU4Heatlth programme, the Recovery and Resilience fund, the new agency HERA, the new remit for the European Medicines Agency and the European Center for Disease Control. There are also new European Commission mechanisms with regards to the purchase of personal protective equipment, supplies, medicines including vaccines and medical technologies. But will the new EU health policy strengthen health systems of Member States or just focus on stronger emergency responses? Will the constitutional asymmetry between health and internal market be addressed? Will EU-health policy remain after the crisis a centre-piece of European Integration? This panel is based on the COVID-19 update of the EU-health policy handbook ‘Everything you always wanted to know about European Union health policies but were afraid to ask'InteractivityThere will be a high level of interactivity. After an introductory presentation, attendees can use the chat-box to choose specific topics from the aforementioned five themes. These topics will be presented in a table. The chair will then pass the questions and topics to the panelists.Speakers/Panelists Sarah Rozenblum University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA Holly Jarman University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA Nick Fahy University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Anniek de Ruijter University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Eleanore Brooks University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Key messages The European Health Union will be one of the most important constitutional and policy outcomes of the pandemic.It is essential that the European Health Union is not only strengthening emergency planning and response but also accessibility, equity and resilience of health systems.

European Union Legislation and Actions

European Union Legislation and Actions

The EU Response to COVID-19: From Reactive Policies to Strategic Decision-Making.

The EU Response to COVID-19: From Reactive Policies to Strategic Decision-Making.

The European Union and Public Health Emergencies: Expert Opinions on the Management of the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Suggestions for Future Emergencies.

Objective: The first wave of the coronavirus SARS-COV-2 pandemic has revealed a fragmented governance within the European Union (EU) to tackle public health emergencies. This qualitative study aims: 1) to understand the current EU position within the field of public health emergencies taking the case of the COVID-19 as an example by comparing and contrasting experiences from EU institutions and experts from various EU Member States at the beginning of the pandemic; and, 2) to identify and to formulate future EU pandemic strategies and actions based on experts' opinions.Methods: Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with public health experts from various European Member States and European Commission officials from May 2020 until August 2020. The transcripts were analyzed by Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), mainly a manifest content analysis.Results: This study demonstrated that the limited EU mandate in health hinders proper actions to prevent and tackle infectious disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that this limitation significantly impacted the ECDC, as the Member States' competence did not allow the agency to have more capacity. The European Commission has fulfilled its role of coordinating and supporting the Member States by facilitating networks and information exchange. However, EU intra- and inter-communication need further improvement. Although diverse EU instruments and mechanisms were found valid, their implementation needed to be faster and more efficient. The results pointed out that underlying political challenges in EU decision-making regarding health emergencies hinder the aligned response. It was stated that the Member States were not prepared, and due to the restriction of their mandate, EU institutions could not enforce binding guidelines. Additionally, the study explored future EU pandemic strategies and actions. Both, EU institutions and national experts suggested similar and clear recommendations regarding the ECDC, the investment, and future harmonized preparedness tools.Conclusion: The complex politics of public health at the EU level have led to the fragmentation of its governance for effective pandemic responses. This ongoing pandemic has shed light on the fragility of the political and structural systems in Europe in public health emergencies. Health should be of high importance in the political agenda, and robust health reforms at the local, regional, national, and EU levels are highly recommended.

European Union Legislation and Actions

European Union Legislation and Actions

Ad hoc method for the assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials.

The European Commission requested EFSA assess antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for animal transmissible diseases, with a view to listing such pathogens for European Union action. This Scientific Opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed: (i) to give a global state of play as regards resistant animal pathogens that cause transmissible animal diseases, (ii) to identify the most relevant bacteria in the EU and (iii) to summarise their actual or potential animal health impact, and to perform their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the criteria of Articles 7, 5, 9 and 8 within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. An extensive literature review is carried out to give the global state of play of selected resistant bacteria that constitute a threat to animal health (i). An expert judgement procedure, based on the outcome of the literature review, is applied to identify which among those bacteria subjected to the literature review are the ‘most relevant’ in the European Union (ii). Their animal health impact in the European Union and their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the AHL framework will follow the ‘ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law’ that EFSA has developed in the past (iii). The assessment of (i) and (ii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately by animal species of interest (dogs and cats, horses, pigs, poultry, cattle, small ruminants, rabbits and aquatic animal species). The assessment of (iii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions and published separately by the animal pathogen.

Organ donation and transplantation: a multi-stakeholder call to action.

Although overall donation and transplantation activity is higher in Europe than on other continents, differences between European countries in almost every aspect of transplantation activity (for example, in the number of transplantations, the number of people with a functioning graft, in rates of living versus deceased donation, and in the use of expanded criteria donors) suggest that there is ample room for improvement. Herein we review the policy and clinical measures that should be considered to increase access to transplantation and improve post-transplantation outcomes. This Roadmap, generated by a group of major European stakeholders collaborating within a Thematic Network, presents an outline of the challenges to increasing transplantation rates and proposes 12 key areas along with specific measures that should be considered to promote transplantation. This framework can be adopted by countries and institutions that are interested in advancing transplantation, both within and outside the European Union. Within this framework, a priority ranking of initiatives is suggested that could serve as the basis for a new European Union Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation.

Energy Transition in the European Union and its Member States: Interpreting Federal Competence Allocation in the Light of the Paris Agreement

AbstractEnergy transition in the European Union (EU) and its Member States involves questions of federalism, which are subject to various perspectives. The distribution of powers cannot be properly understood using classical legal methodology alone because Articles 192 to 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) contain too many ambiguous political compromises. On the one hand, Article 192(1) TFEU (on the environment) and Article 194(1) and (2)(1) TFEU (on energy) enable EU legislation on energy transition through the ordinary legislative procedure, including majority voting in the European Parliament and the Council. On the other hand, there are significant textual limits for EU action in neighbouring provisions with a ‘sovereignty exception’ for the Member States in both Article 192(2) and Article 194(2)(2) TFEU. This article argues that, in the light of the Paris Agreement, the allocation of competences between the EU and its Member States should, in case of doubt, be understood in such a way that effective climate protection becomes possible. Because under Article 191(1) TFEU the EU is to promote measures at the international level to combat climate change, such an international law-friendly interpretation is part of a legitimate teleological approach. Economic theories of federalism and innovation research in the social sciences help us to understand which aspects of economic or innovation theory can promote effectiveness in this respect. It is necessary to interpret the distribution of competences in a dynamic way, thereby slightly shifting the limits of interpretation.

Fighting the unbearable lightness of neglecting kidney health: the decade of the kidney.

A brief comprehensive overview is provided of the elements constituting the burden of kidney disease [chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury]. This publication can be used for advocacy, emphasizing the importance and urgency of reducing this heavy and rapidly growing burden. Kidney diseases contribute to significant physical limitations, loss of quality of life, emotional and cognitive disorders, social isolation and premature death. CKD affects close to 100 million Europeans, with 300 million being at risk, and is projected to become the fifth cause of worldwide death by 2040. Kidney disease also imposes financial burdens, given the costs of accessing healthcare and inability to work. The extrapolated annual cost of all CKD is at least as high as that for cancer or diabetes. In addition, dialysis treatment of kidney diseases imposes environmental burdens by necessitating high energy and water consumption and producing plastic waste. Acute kidney injury is associated with further increases in global morbidity, mortality and economic burden. Yet investment in research for treatment of kidney disease lags behind that of other diseases. This publication is a call for European investment in research for kidney health. The innovations generated should mirror the successful European Union actions against cancer over the last 30 years. It is also a plea to nephrology professionals, patients and their families, caregivers and kidney health advocacy organizations to draw, during the Decade of the Kidney (2020–30), the attention of authorities to realize changes in understanding, research and treatment of kidney disease.

European Union Legislation and Actions

European Union Legislation and Actions

The Paris agreement and key actors' domestic climate policy mixes: comparative patterns.

This article examines two important conditions for achieving the Paris Agreement’s (PA) ambitious goals. The first is the actions of the largest emitters—China, the European Union (EU) and the USA whose combined share of global emissions is near 50%. The second condition is the bottom–up design of the PA itself. Drawing on the policy mix literature and comparison of the three major emitters examined in this special feature (see Bang, Heggelund and Skjærseth), we first conclude that the EU has the most ambitious climate targets and policy mixes needed for achieving net zero emissions. Second, the PA has contributed to more ambitious targets and policy mixes mainly in the EU but also in China. Ambitious EU actors have actively invoked the PA goals to further their interests and legalize the Agreement’s dynamic five-year cycles. With Biden as president the USA will again be a party to the PA and is set to join the EU and China in upgrading ambitions. Looking towards the future, the USA and particularly China will have to, in one way or another, to follow the EU if net zero emissions are to be achieved. This may necessitate actual EU leadership by example.

Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation

Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation

The Role of the EU in the Management of the Covid-19 Crisis

Although the European Union's actions on the management of the Covid-19 crisis have been harshly criticized by the lack of dedicated mechanisms to protect the health of European citizens, an analysis of EU action in the field of health will give us the opportunity to know and understand the situation created in the European area as a result of the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic. This Article aims to highlight the main actions taken by the EU in the field of health and in the management of the Covid-19 crisis.