Belgium Issues Roadmap for Competition-Compliant Sustainability Cooperation

The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has released draft guidelines clarifying how companies can collaborate on sustainability initiatives without breaching competition law. The draft guidelines provide much-needed legal guidance for businesses seeking to cooperate on environmental objectives.

Addressing the Tension Between Sustainability and Competition

The BCA recognises that applying competition law to sustainability agreements has created tension between enabling necessary cooperation to foster sector-wide sustainable solutions and avoiding anti-competitive effects of such cooperation. Through its guidelines, the BCA seeks to provide greater transparency and offer practical guidance to stakeholders in order to stimulate sustainability initiatives. 

The BCA invites companies to seek its non-binding advice in the event competition law concerns arise, and also details a fast-track procedure in which advice can be obtained within three months.

Types of sustainability agreements

To achieve that goal, the BCA distinguishes three categories of sustainability agreements.

Agreements unlikely to restrict competition – The BCA states that agreements which are incapable of falsifying market conditions through an appreciable restriction of competition can be implemented. In reference to the Commission’s sustainability guidelines, the BCA explicitly mentions agreements solely aimed at complying with legally binding international requirements, agreements concerning purely internal conduct (such as removing single-use plastics from business premises), information sharing about suppliers' sustainability practices without obligations on business relations, and consumer-awareness campaigns about consumption habits. This list is non-exhaustive and only contains examples of the agreements that would typically fall outside competition concerns.

Sustainability Standardisation Agreements – If an agreement is capable of appreciably restricting competition, additional assessment is required and the BCA guidelines offer additional guidance for so-called sustainability standardisation agreements (SSAs). SSAs are defined as agreements specifying the conditions for sustainability indicators applicable to operators within the same value chain. An example is the initiative of several supermarkets to ensure a liveable wage in the banana sector.

The BCA guidelines state that SSAs do not restrict competition when they meet six cumulative conditions: 

• open and transparent procedures,
• voluntary participation,
• minimum (not maximum) requirements,
• strictly necessary information exchange,
• effective and non-discriminatory access, and
• no significant competition effects.

The BCA however warns that agreements which restrict competition under the guise of standardisation will still face competition law scrutiny. This will be the case for agreements fixing prices, foreclosing non-conforming products or limiting technological developments.

Restrictive Agreements That May Qualify for Exemption –Finally, even agreements that restrict competition may be justified if four cumulative conditions are met.[1] The BCA provides guidance on how these conditions will be interpreted in the case of sustainability agreements:

• Efficiency improvements: Sustainability objectives typically generate efficiency gains, particularly when agreements enable less-polluting technologies, improve production conditions, develop better quality products, accelerate sustainable product launches, or facilitate informed consumer decisions. The BCA guidelines provide details on the types of efficiency gains that will be considered, explain that future gains can also be taken into account, and warn that parties must be able to demonstrate efficiency gains sufficiently.
• Indispensability: Both the agreement itself and each competition restriction must be indispensable to achieve the efficiency gains, requiring parties to demonstrate that objectives cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
• Fair share to consumers: Consumers must receive a fair share of the claimed efficiency improvements, with "users" encompassing all direct and indirect customers of the products and services covered by the agreement. The BCA guidelines provide additional guidance on the burden of proof and on which consumers must be taken into account for the analysis.
• No elimination of competition: The agreement must not eliminate all competition. The BCA explains that as long as companies continue to compete on one or more parameters or credible potential competition exists, this condition can be met.

Special Rules for Agriculture

The Guidelines also contain specific rules for the agricultural sector, based on the exception for sustainability agreements in that sector provided for in the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation. This Regulation clears agreements if three key requirements are fulfilled.

• Producer participation: At least one producer of agricultural products (as defined in Annex I TFEU) must be party to the agreement.
• Going beyond legal requirements: The sustainability agreement must contribute to environmental objectives, reduce pesticide use, or improve animal health and welfare, and must exceed the most mandatory legal norm applicable to the relevant products.
• Indispensability: The sustainability agreement must be reasonably necessary to obtain the stipulated goals and each individual restriction must be indispensable to apply the sustainability norm.

The BCA analyses the European Commission's July 2025 opinion on a French wine sector agreement establishing indicative prices for wine produced in Occitanie according to organic and high environmental value standards, demonstrating how authorities assess whether cooperation is genuinely necessary to maintain sustainability standards.

Practical Takeaways

The BCA's draft guidelines provide a clear framework for businesses pursuing sustainability collaboration. We identify the following takeaways:

• No-investigation comfort: The BCA's commitment not to investigate compliant agreements may offer significant comfort to undertakings that they will not be required to invest resources in unnecessary investigations. Staying clearly within the confines of the safe harbours identified in the guidelines is therefore recommended.
• Legal certainty through informal opinions: The BCA’s explicit invitation for informal guidance is welcome. Although non-binding, it can offer significant comfort to companies who want to work together to further sustainability goals within their sector.
• Structured procedures: The structured procedure to obtain guidance also ensures parties have a better idea of what lies ahead when they first reach out to the BCA for informal guidance, also reducing procedural uncertainty. Three-month response times make informal guidance a practical option.

The draft guidelines are currently still subject to change and are expected to be adopted formally by the beginning of next year.

If you need more information or further guidance in this area, please contact Baptist Vleeshouwers and Claire De Neve.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION LAW HOMEPAGE