Competition often reflects two very different worlds for business leaders: one of emulation competition and innovation, which they find stimulating; and the other of competition law, where the authorities in charge are perceived by them primarily as a constraint on the implementation of their business strategies.
Yet, it is a challenge to be liberal without subscribing to the idea that preserving competition is essential to the strength of our economies. Furthermore, how can you be committed to entrepreneurship without recognising that the authorities in question play a key role in the creation of value?
However, efficiency in a given market requires all stakeholders to take their part, including competition authorities.
It is therefore their responsibility to be aligned with the economic realities of the markets and therefore also with the way companies operate. It is also critical that the authorities take into account the consequences of their decisions, by having a more dynamic outlook on the competitive functioning of markets which goes far beyond an analysis of their situation at a particular moment in time.
What is at stake is neither more nor less than the existence within the company of genuine consideration for competition law and the willingness to abide by its rules. Although many companies have this commitment, they are still often misunderstood or hindered.
It is essential for the authorities to have a dynamic vision of how markets operate, going beyond an analysis of their state at a given point in time.
For example, addressing the challenges of the energy transition process requires extensive cooperation between companies, without which neither the major investments required nor the most radical innovations will be possible. In some cases, this would require companies to enter into agreements with one another, which may be anti-competitive, but which would also be virtuous in terms of sustainability objectives. However, competition authorities would have to be willing to consider this idea and change their analysis criteria in order to authorize such agreements in certain cases.
Another illustration: making competition law understood and therefore respected by operational and management staff requires that communication within the company be flowing and straightforward when it comes to these subjects and practices. But how can this be achieved when suspicion prevails when dealing with the authorities? Moreover, what methods can be implemented without legal privilege for legal directors, or protection for information reported by internal audits, even though these are invaluable tools for identifying and addressing concerns?
We are delighted to have brought together to discuss these issues outstanding external experts as well as two top-level representatives of the business world, confronted on a daily basis with these topics in their decision-making. We hope you enjoy reading their thoughts.