GOOD JOBS FIRST DATA HIGHLIGHTS TWO FACES OF EU ENFORCEMENT

Corporate Crime in Europe

The Corporate Crime Observatory is delighted to announce and share a new report, "Europe's Biggest Corporate Lawbreakers at Home and Abroad." This comprehensive analysis was prepared by Philip Mattera and Siobhan Standaert of Good Jobs First. The report's findings are entirely derived from data within the Violation Tracker Global database, a valued partner of the Corporate Crime Observatory.

The full report is available here: https://perma.cc/DT4Y-4HLM

The report presents a startling and meticulously documented argument: large multinational corporations headquartered in the European Union face far more significant financial penalties for misconduct outside the EU than they do within it. The report highlights that, since the beginning of 2010, EU-based multinationals have paid a total of US$147 billion (about EUR 128 billion) in penalties around the world. Of this amount, only US$43 billion stemmed from cases brought by EU member states or the European Commission. In contrast, a staggering US$104 billion in penalties were imposed by regulators in the rest of the world. The United States accounts for the lion's share of this enforcement, responsible for two-thirds of the total penalties paid by EU companies globally.

The report begins with an overview of worldwide penalties before drilling down into a direct comparison of penalties imposed inside versus outside the EU. This comparative framework highlights the core discrepancy mentioned above. The analysis is then further stratified, offering granular breakdowns of penalties by specific industries and by offense groups, such as financial crimes, environmental violations, and competition-related offenses. This multi-layered approach allows researchers to move beyond the headline numbers and understand the specific sectors and types of misconduct where enforcement diverges most dramatically. The inclusion of deep-dive sections on penalties in the U.S. and U.K. provides concrete case studies of non-EU enforcement regimes. This logical, data-first structure makes the report's conclusions both compelling and easily digestible.

For those studying corporate and economic crime, this report appears very relevant. It provides data that moves beyond anecdotal evidence to attempt to quantify the realities of global corporate regulation. The report’s central conclusion—that there are "two faces of EU regulation" with aggressive enforcement in competition and privacy but comparatively weak enforcement elsewhere—is a crucial insight for understanding regulatory arbitrage and compliance challenges.

Furthermore, the findings directly challenge the pervasive narrative that the EU is universally "overregulated." By demonstrating that EU enforcement often lags behind that of the U.S., the report provides a critical counterpoint essential for nuanced policy debates. It serves as a tool for students, academics, and policymakers, offering a data-driven foundation for exploring why these enforcement gaps exist and how they might be addressed. The authors' concluding call for "stricter regulation coupled with robust transparency" underscores the importance of such research in the ongoing effort to ensure corporate accountability.

#Business #CCO #CompetitionLaw #Corporate #CorporateAccountability #CorporateCrime #CorporateCrimeObservatory #Corporation #Crime #Deregulation #DueDiligence #EconomicCrime #EU #FinancialCrime #GoodJobsFirst #Law #Penalties #Policy #Privacy #Regulation #Sanctions #Transparency #UK #US #ViolationTracker #WhiteCollarCrime