"Spoiled Child" Behavior
That’s the impression one might get from the criticisms voiced by Frank Van Gool of Febiac* before an audience of 600 mobility professionals at the Mobility Awards of the Year, organized last Thursday by Link2fleet*. His attacks targeted the reimbursement of rent or mortgage payments for employees living less than 10 km from their primary workplace. He views this as a loss for the mobility sector and equates it to a "cash for car" scheme.
Let’s Take a Step Back
For decades, company cars—which by definition serve both private and professional purposes—have enjoyed exclusive and preferential tax benefits from the government. Belgium has thus become the only country in Europe with such a flourishing and luxurious company car fleet. Company cars held a tacit monopoly on the fiscal treatment of employees' private mobility.
The Mobility Budget has rebalanced this system, which disadvantaged alternative transport options and employees who did not want a company car. It encourages employees to make more responsible mobility choices without adding administrative burdens for employers. Tools available on the market even show that managing soft mobility is four times simpler than managing company cars.
However, the Mobility Budget has a limitation: it is not yet accessible to all employees, but only to those who already have a company car, which represents about 10% of employees.
This legal framework includes all employee mobility options: eco-friendly cars, public transportation, bicycles, electric scooters, taxis, shared vehicles, and commutes of less than 10 km. In cases of primarily remote work, electronic mobility covers avoided commutes, whether for work, personal, or professional purposes. Employers define the permissible framework for these non-commutes, allowing them to exclude telework or specify the physical presence required for business purposes. The Covid pandemic demonstrated the vast range of roles that can be performed from home.
This reduction in commutes, adopted by 70% of employees and employers, is now seen as a threat by businesses tied to the company car model. When employees and employers choose to significantly reduce travel—by living closer to the workplace or primarily teleworking—the need for a company car often disappears. This is not comparable to the "cash for car" scheme, which did not mandate a reduction in travel.
Where’s the Real Issue?
Let’s be realistic: if employers and employees opt for more responsible and streamlined mobility, where’s the real problem?
I admit to feeling a certain attachment to a nice car myself, and I won’t easily give up my beautiful company car. Perhaps I would sacrifice a few options to trade them for an electric bike. However, I have great respect for those who make the more rational and responsible choice to significantly reduce their travel and then use a bike, public transportation, or a smaller vehicle. Honestly, I think I’m more open to criticism with my luxurious company car!
Let’s Play Fair
Let’s respect the choices of our clients and their employees. The monopoly of company cars in Belgium, unique in Europe for so many years, was precisely what needed to be challenged. So, let’s enthusiastically embrace the new rules of the game!
*1 Febiac is the Belgian and Luxembourg federation representing automobile and two-wheeler manufacturers and importers.
*2 Link2fleet is the Belgian media outlet representing corporate mobility.
Comments