The Estonian regime does not explicitly mention ESG or sustainability aspects, however, the general framework does allow taking such aspects into account. In particular, section 6 (1) (1) of the Estonian Competition Act does, unlike art 101 (3) TFEU, state that an agreement, activity, or decision which contributes to protecting the environment, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, can benefit from an individual exemption on the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, activity and decisions. That said, the Estonian Competition Authority has to the extent that we are aware, only on a few occasions considered environmental benefits as relevant under section 6 (1) (1) of the Estonian Competition Act and generally such aspects have not been considered by themselves sufficient as to outweigh any negative effects on competition. 

There are no ongoing proceedings for changing the Competition Act to explicitly include ESG and sustainability agreements.

No official guidance has been provided by the Authority. In practice, the Authority will apply a case-by-case assessment on the relevant and appreciably of any ESG or sustainability goals.

While the authority has issued guidance regarding collaborations or participating in industry working groups, in particular through press statements, there have been no separate ESG considerations outlined that we are aware of.

The Competition Authority can be approached on whether specific collaboration complies with Estonian competition law or not. Further, the Authority is generally quite welcoming to such initiatives.

There are no national guidelines for quantifying or calculating ESG effects. The EU regulation regarding ESG reporting applies. A common practice is to base reports on the standards established by the Global Reporting Initiative.

The Competition Authority considers activities that meet the criteria of the EU block exemption regulations as permissible and has not provided any further guidance on it. As noted above, while the Estonian Competition Act itself allows for somewhat wider benefits to be counted under the individual block exemption, the application of the exemption still follows EU case law.

In 2005, the authority granted a concerted practice between the members of MTÜ Taara Liit (a non-profit association) an exemption under section 6 of the Competition Act on the grounds of it contributes to protecting the environment. The parties agreed on establishing a uniform purchase price of packaging. The authority stated that the collaboration benefits the protection of the environment since it ensures proper collection and recycling of packaging. It also found that other cumulative conditions for granting the exemption were fulfilled.

In a 2018 response to the Estonian Traders’ Association inquiry, the authority stated that the uptake of standardized boxes contributes to improving the distribution of goods and that savings in fuel costs, as well as a reduction in packaging materials presumably, protects the environment, fulfilling the first of cumulative conditions for granting an exemption under section 6 of the Competition Act. Standardized reusable boxes that are compatible with each other and therefore save space in both warehouses and transportation resulting in fewer expenses and pollution.

We are not aware of any specific antitrust regulation which gives rise to private or class action ESG litigation. That said if a potentially anti-competitive agreement also has negative effects on ESG/sustainability aspects, damages could in theory be awarded to injured parties, especially in sectors where ESG regulations are under increased focus (e.g. financial sector).