Problem:
Proponents of the EU law argue that it signifies a step forward for the European business community: Corporate transparency not only dissuades companies from becoming corrupt-it also provides them a medium through which they can communicate their positive business practices and contributions to society. Keeping a channel open only serves to benefit corporations that do not engage in illicit business practices. According to EU Commissioner Michel Barnier, transparency generates greater profits for the corporations that embrace it: "Companies that already publish information on their financial and non-financial performances take a longer term perspective in their decision-making. They have lower financing costs, attract and retain talented employees, and ultimately are more successful." Jana Mittermaier, director of advocacy group Transparency International, argues that the new rules would help raise awareness about corruption in the European Union's private sector. Consumers and investors deserve to know how businesses operate-even if those businesses are not willing to divulge that information on their own. This not only produces a better-educated public, it also protects against economic crises. Opponents of the EU law, however, argue that it will do more harm than good: The European businesses sector has flatly rejected transparency; less than 6 percent of all EU businesses willingly engage in non-financial operational reporting. In Germany alone, four major federations-t