Amazon has become the second company to ban its lobbyists from the European Parliament, amid accusations that it does not take the body seriously.
The ban means 14 Amazon employees with access to the European Parliament are no longer allowed to enter the building without an invitation, following the company’s decision not to attend a January hearing on working conditions inside its distribution centers. In December, Amazon also rejected requests from MEPs [members of European Parliament] Asked to visit their fulfillment center citing they were very busy during the Christmas period.
“This is not a serious way to treat the European Parliament,” said Dragoş Pîslaru, a Romanian MEP and chairman of the parliament’s employment and social affairs committee, who formally requested the ban. “We represent 500 million citizens, this is no joke. When parliament asks you, you can’t just say your senior representative is not here.”
He added that companies from outside Europe should take the EU parliament as seriously as they take the U.S. Congress. “The European Parliament is not holding a grudge,” he said. “This is about us demanding to be respected as an institution.”
The row comes as concerns grow in Europe about working conditions at Amazon fulfillment centers. In January this year, the French data protection agency fined Amazon 32 million euros (approximately $34 million) for operating what it called an “overly intrusive system for monitoring employee activities.” Last November, Amazon workers in Germany and Italy went on strike on Black Friday, demanding better wages and working conditions. Amazon said it has 150,000 employees in the EU.
“The fact that Amazon has refused to come forward with their arguments every time we call them is concerning,” Pislaru said. “That’s not my subjective opinion. It’s based on how parliament should be run.”
Following Amazon’s absence in January, Pislaru first asked for Amazon’s lobbying license to be revoked when he sent a letter to the president of parliament on February 6. “This issue is not just about disrespect for the European Parliament; it is about the well-being, fundamental rights and working conditions of hundreds of thousands of Europeans working in Amazon warehouses,” he wrote in the letter. The letter also said that it is unreasonable for Amazon to lobby members of the European Parliament while denying them the right to investigate the company’s labor practices.
Pislaru said the idea of banning Amazon lobbyists has been around since 2021, when the company first rejected an invitation to the European Parliament to attend another hearing on working conditions. But following his February letter, the European Parliament confirmed last night that the Amazon lobbyist’s pass would be revoked. This means Amazon becomes the second company to have its access to the European Parliament revoked, following a 2017 ban on Roundup maker Monsanto. Monsanto’s ban lasted until the company was acquired by Bayer the following year.
Amazon said in a statement on its website that it was “disappointed” in the decision. The company described the January hearing, which it did not participate in, as “one-sided and not intended to encourage constructive debate.” The company said it had sent “dozens of invitations” to committee members and employees to tour its facilities. On February 5, Amazon wrote to Pîslaru, inviting his committee to visit one of its 80 European fulfillment centers. However, Pislaru said an official EU delegation would not be allowed to take place so close to the EU’s June elections. “They seemed willing to invite us because they knew we couldn’t go.”
Pislaru said Amazon’s lobbying pass could be restored once the EU Employment Commission says the company shows a genuine willingness to cooperate. This is unlikely to happen before the election, as MEPs rush to finalize unfinished legislation and prepare for their election campaigns. Before the pass was reinstated, Amazon lobbyists could only enter the EU parliament by invitation from internal staff. “They can still lobby individual MEPs and meet with them outside parliament,” said Bram Vranken, a researcher focusing on big tech at the campaign group European Business Observatory. “This is primarily a very important political signal that the company has gone too far.”
For Franken, a ban is a good first step. “We would like to see this ban become permanent and extended to all large tech companies,” he said, adding that it would prevent the companies from diluting key legislation.
“A permanent ban is not necessarily justified,” Pislaru said. “Unless, of course, their actions continue to mock the institution in the future.”