Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

Companies Reap EU Research Rewards

Millions of euros of EU research money is being directed towards controversial projects which do not benefit the public interest, according to new research from Corporate Europe Observatory published today [1].

The report, which is launched as the European Commission hosts a conference on research in Brussels [2], says that the approval of so-many controversial projects is not surprising, given that many of the companies were also involved in writing the EU’s Strategic Research Agenda, which sets the priorities for new research.

Projects receiving funding under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) include research into genetically modified trees and crops, research in coordination with Brazil to foster agrofuel imports from Latin America, and research into the use of agrofuels for aviation.

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has criticised the funding priorities which it says fail to assess the public benefits of the schemes.

Report author Amaranta Herrero from CEO said:

“These projects are being given public money but they will not benefit EU taxpayers, or the public in general. Instead the European Commission gives private companies priviliged access in deciding how public funds are spent. The companies involved must be laughing all the way to the bank.”

Companies including Shell, Syngenta, Novozymes, Bayer, SEKAB, Abengoa, Repsol and SweTree Technologies were involved in writing the EU’s Strategic Research Agenda after they were invited to join the Commission’s European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBFTP) [3]. All have so far received funding under FP7.

The research highlights the threats posed by some of the projects being funded, in particular the risk posed by GE trees. SweTree Technologies wants to modify trees to reduce the lignin content, which gives trees their rigidity. But the report authors say this will make the trees vulnerable and put natural forests at risk if they are exposed to this genetic trait.

Nina Holland, co-author of the report, added:
“Projects to genetically engineer trees for biomass pose a major threat to the survival of our forests, while increased agrofuel production will result in further monoculture expansion in Latin America and elsewhere. These energy projects to develop alternative fuels are as damaging as the fossil fuels they seek to replace.”


Amaranta Herrero: + 34 935812503
Nina Holland: + 32 497 389 632 (Thursday: + 31 6 30285042)

[1] Agrofuels and the EU research budget: public funding for private interests, Corporate Europe Observatory, 27 May 2009,
[2] 'Sustainable Development; a Challenge for European Research', Brussels, 26-28 May
Related issues: 

Monsanto and the pesticide industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on 12 November 2015. The findings of an investigation into the toxicity of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and EU Member States were in stark contradiction to the March 2015 conclusion by the International Agency for Research against Cancer (IARC), a body of the World Health Organization (WHO), that this agricultural herbicide was probably causing cancer to humans. If validated, this conclusion could cause a partial ban of glyphosate in the EU.

In closing her investigation into DG AGRI's 'Expert Groups', the European Ombudsman has called for more transparency as well as structural measures to ensure groups are more balanced.
An often asked question is whether TTIP will weaken Europe's rules over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Meanwhile, the biotech industry is pushing for the products of the 'next generation' biotech crops to escape the EU's legislation on GMOs and therefore to go unregulated. Is there a link between this new push, and TTIP? Emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request show this might indeed be the case.
Crispr/Cas9, oligodirected mutagenesis, zinc finger nuclease… Those names are a few of a longer list of new techniques of biotechnologies (NTB) for which the European Union is still to decide whether their products are falling under the scope of the EU GMO legislation or not. After having consulted with scientists experts, legal services and some member states, the European Commission has promised it will release a document before the end of 2015. If any were expecting this document to be discussed with the European Parliament and all the Member states, they had it wrong as the European Commission will not contact them, contrarily to what was announced in the first place... In january, an open letter from associations and unions to the European Commission stated that all the new techniques of biotechnology should be considered as giving rise to GMOs falling under the scope of the EU legislation.

Big corporations are taking a strong interest in this years Climate Negotiations in Paris - COP21. But what lies behind the glossy publications and impressive business events ?

An overview of CEO's activities in Paris

A new guide to lobbying and greenwashing around the UN climate talks

'Lobby Planet Paris'' maps the big corporations, lobby groups and trade associations that are trying hard to capture the climate talks

Capturing COP21 - Corporate influence and the UN climate summit in Paris

The corporate lobby tour

Stop the Crop

Alternative Trade Mandate