Challenge

INTCO is a Chinese company and the world market leader in medical disposable gloves. The company plays a central role in securing reliable, high-quality medical supplies for hospitals, healthcare providers, and patients worldwide.

The European Commission considered applying the International Procurement Instrument (IPI), which could restrict third-country suppliers’ access to EU public tenders. For INTCO, this risked exclusion from medical procurements across the Union—threatening supply continuity, competitive pricing, and Europe’s preparedness for future health emergencies, including the next pandemic.

Strategy

Alber & Geiger engaged the European Commission and the European Parliament, and coordinated with key Member States to prevent discriminatory treatment under the IPI. We made the cross-institutional case that open competition in medical tenders strengthens supply resilience, affordability, and strategic autonomy, safeguarding the Union’s readiness for the next pandemic.

Results

INTCO preserved full access to EU procurement and maintained its ability to compete in medical tenders across Europe. European hospitals retained reliable and affordable access to essential disposable gloves and supplies—reinforcing the Union’s health security and preparedness for future crises.

Challenge

Alber & Geiger was hired by Nuseed to promote Carinata, a cover crop designed for biofuel production, in the EU Renewable Energy Directive in Brussels. Our team was required to ensure the approval of Carinata’s GHG savings. On top, we were mandated to pave the way for Carinata’s classification as an advanced biofuel towards the EU institutions.

Strategy

We targeted lawmakers in the European Parliament and officials in the European Commission. We presented arguments highlighting Carinata’s benefits, especially in producing high-quality and low greenhouse gas fuels. Carinata’s sustainability was emphasised during our outreach, while concerns over threatening food production and land-use were mitigated.

Results

Our engagement helped remove the yearlong impasse and paved the way for the acknowledgment and approval of Carinata’s GHG savings. Alber & Geiger’s engagement with EU officials and lawmakers increased understanding of the properties and benefits of Carinata. Also, it helped create advocates for a review of the existing list of advanced biofuels, and laid the groundwork for the inclusion of all crops that fulfil the criteria, to create a level playing field.

Challenge

Alber & Geiger represented Panama in the aftermath of the “Panama papers” with regard to the new EU anti money laundering blacklist. As a result of the “Panama papers” the EU decided for the first time to set up its own blacklist. Before that, the EU would copy the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF) lists.

In Summer 2019, Panama was added to the grey list of FATF, at a time when the country was finalizing its reforms. Alber & Geiger was called to halt the result in FATF from spilling over in the EU and to weigh in the new EU methodology and the procedural gaps in the EU listing. Panama was caught in a timing paradox: Its automatic EU listing would be followed by a potential delisting from FATF, without clear assurances that the latter would be reflected in an EU delisting.

Strategy

Our goal was straightforward: raise awareness for Panama’s advances in combating money laundering and through that ensure that the EU will not unjustly list Panama as a high risk third country. Our message had to circle in the three key EU institutions. The architect of the procedure and list of high risk third countries, the European Commission, and the gatekeepers of the procedure, the European Parliament and the Member States.

Our message was tailor made for each front, appealing the several working levels and directorates of the Commission, the Committees of the European Parliament and different levels of organization in the Member States. Alber & Geiger grasped the opportunity of the drafting of the new methodology for the EU listing of high risk third countries, to engage with the different Commission directorates involved in the process and apply Panama’s position. In the Parliament, we focused on rewarding a third country such as Panama, which is determined to turn a bad precedent into a success story and we stressed upon the bilateral relationships of Panama towards the Member States.

Results

The EU did not implement its list and methodology as planned. Panama being listed by the EU as a high risk third country within the EU anti money laundering framework now is based on an automatic listing/delisting process with FATF. Our lobbying efforts enhanced the visibility and acknowledgement of Panama’s efforts in modernizing its anti-money laundering regime and changed the original EU methodology draft according to the demands of Panama.