The European Commission is currently revising its merger guidelines. These guidelines will shape the EU’s merger control framework and are therefore of great significance for determining the level of market concentration that Europe will allow in the future.
For the revision of the guidelines, the European Commission commissioned a study on the effects of mergers (study on dynamic merger effects). The contract went, of all places, to the economic consulting firm Oxera, which simultaneously advises companies on mergers and represents their interests. Oxera therefore does not take an independent stance, but often represents the interests of large corporations.
The study is being released just a few months before the final version of the guidelines is adopted. It is likely to influence the final revision process. Oxera itself states that the study’s findings “will be directly incorporated into the first update of the EU merger control framework in over 20 years.” This is problematic and constitutes a conflict of interest. This is all the more true because it is the only study commissioned by the Commission.
The Commission has already had to terminate a contract with the economic consulting firm RBB once before due to public pressure. In that case as well, the Commission had not taken sufficient precautions against conflicts of interest.
In response to an inquiry from Rebalance Now, the Commission stated that it had taken sufficient precautions against conflicts of interest. These precautions are outlined in the Call for tenders. Among them is the criterion that Oxera may only have been involved to a limited extent in mergers reviewed by the EU over the past five years, and that its share of total revenue over the past five years may not exceed 20 percent. According to the Commission, Oxera also signed a declaration regarding conflicts of interest.
However, these measures do not resolve the fundamental problem: Oxera advises companies on mergers, and the consulting firm will continue to have a business interest in ensuring that companies’ mergers are approved. We will therefore file a complaint regarding the Oxera case with the European Ombudsman.
Problematic contracting practices in the study
Out of a large number of strong applications, the commission chose, of all people, a firm with a potential conflict of interest. Of course, Oxera brings expertise in the area of mergers. But it offers a one-sided, business-oriented perspective.
Oxera has advised companies on numerous significant mergers. These include the following: Adobe/Figma, Bayer/Monsanto, Broadcom/VMWare, Dow/DuPont, Facebook/Giphy, General Electric/Alstom, Mars/Kellanova, Microsoft/Activision, Prosus/Just Eat Takeaway, and Veolia/Suez.
The selection of Oxera for the study becomes even more puzzling when one looks at the bidding process as a whole. The Commission issued a call for proposals for the study at the end of March 2025. The call for proposals included clear criteria for awarding the contract, including a reference to the avoidance of conflicts of interest in the public procurement criteria.
There were also numerous applications; according to what we have heard. Some were from high-profile independent scholars, including a Nobel laureate in economics. These applicants should have been given preference, precisely for reasons of integrity.
Oxera is not an isolated case
The decision to commission Oxera to conduct the study is, regrettably, not an isolated case. In the past, the EU competition authority had already commissioned the economic consulting firm RBB Economics to evaluate its internal processes regarding mergers in 2021. This led to massive public criticism, prompting then-Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager to subsequently terminate the contract with RBB Economics in 2023.
Contract between the Commission and Oxera raises questions
Rebalance Now has obtained a copy of the Commission’s contract with Oxera. The European Commission released the contract in response to a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act. The contract includes provisions regarding conflicts of interest, which stipulate that Oxera must avoid any potential conflicts of interest and take appropriate measures.
The contract specifically states: “The contractor must take all necessary measures to prevent any situation of conflict of interest or professional conflict of interest.”
However, despite the requirement in the contract, the Commission apparently has not clarified how Oxera is supposed to resolve the obvious conflict of interest.
One-sided event to present the study
Unfortunately, this problem persists in the design of the event at which the study will be presented on September 11, 2026. The two planned panel discussions will each feature economic consulting firms: representatives from Berkeley Research Group (BRG) and CompassLexecon. Both firms also advise companies on mergers and acquisitions.
The same applies here: there would have been competent, independent alternatives from the academic community. One has to wonder why the Commission didn’t exert its influence even in this instance to ensure independent advice.
Past revolving door cases – a systemic problem
A key reason why the Commission lacks sensitivity to potential conflicts of interest in awarding studies to Oxera is reflected in the practice of numerous job switches between the Commission and consulting firms. This applies not only to Oxera but also to other consulting firms, such as RBB Economics, CompassLexecon, and Charles River Associates. Research by LobbyControl and the Corporate Europe Observatory provides an overview of this issue.
Key figure in study switches sides
What is particularly striking in this case is that Giulio Frederico, who was in charge of the study at Oxera, was formerly the head of unit in the Chief Economist Team at the EU’s competition authority, DG Competition. Numerous members of the Chief Economist Team have moved on to consulting firms.
There is no question about it: Frederico has a great deal of experience with corporate mergers. At present, however, his perspective is primarily that of companies that are determined to see their mergers through. When asked by Rebalance Now about conflicts of interest in the study, Frederico referred to the European Commission and the competition authority’s guidelines on conflicts of interest.
Excessive closeness between consulting firms and the Commission
The revision of the merger guidelines is a key process for the renewal of competition policy in Europe. If the Commission refines the guidelines effectively, it could use them as a basis to prevent further market concentration in Europe.
Entrusting the key reference study to an economic consulting firm that earns a significant portion of its revenue by advising companies on mergers and other competition-related proceedings is, in this respect, grossly negligent and leads to problematic conflicts of interest.
The Commission should refrain from commissioning such studies from these consulting firms in the future. At the same time, it should take a particularly critical approach to the study on merger control now prepared by Oxera. It would be even better if the DG Competition commissioned another alternative study, which would then hopefully be prepared and presented by independent researchers. It would also be helpful to have a more balanced range of voices on the panels at future events like today’s, which are held to present the study.
We will continue to monitor the situation and voice our concerns. When awarding such important studies, the Commission should take steps to ensure that potential conflicts of interest are ruled out from the outset.
Image: Rebalance Now.
