www.infosubvenciones.es

                                                                   

Full URL: https://www.infosubvenciones.es/bdnstrans/GE/es/index

Strategic Imperative

The National Subsidies Database is the definitive record of non-tender public funding in Spain. For COCOO, this intelligence is vital for mapping the financial relationships between the state and the private sector. A company’s reliance on public subsidies is a potential vulnerability, and the government’s pattern of giving subsidies reveals its true policy priorities.

This platform is mission-critical for:

  • Identifying Competitor Weaknesses: A competitor that is heavily reliant on public subsidies can be vulnerable. If we can demonstrate, using Violation Tracker, that this company is non-compliant with the very regulations the subsidy is meant to uphold (e.g., receiving environmental subsidies while committing environmental violations), we create a powerful case for the subsidy to be revoked.
  • Challenging State Aid Decisions: This database provides the raw data to identify potential illegal State Aid. If a subsidy provides a selective advantage to one company over its competitors, it may be open to a formal challenge with the EC, a core COCOO strategy.
  • Uncovering “Enforcement Gaps”: We can identify situations where the government is subsidizing companies that are actively working against its own stated policies (e.g., giving innovation grants to a firm engaged in anti-competitive practices). This contradiction is a clear “Enforcement Gap” that we can exploit.
  • Informing our “Challenge Discretionary Power” Doctrine: The decision to award a grant is a discretionary act. This database provides the evidence needed to question the basis for that act, especially if the beneficiary is a high-risk entity or linked to decision-makers.

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The platform is a filter-based search engine that allows for highly specific queries.

  • No Complex Operators: Like other Spanish government portals, the search relies on filling structured fields rather than using complex Boolean operators.
  • Key Search Fields (Criterios de búsqueda):
    • NIF: The most precise way to search for a specific beneficiary, using their tax ID.
    • Beneficiario (Beneficiary): Searches for a company or individual by name.
    • Órgano convocante (Granting Body): A critical filter to see all grants awarded by a specific ministry, regional government, or public body.
    • Título de la convocatoria (Title of the Call): A keyword search for the name or subject of the grant program itself (e.g., digitalización, sostenibilidad).
    • Región: Filters grants by the autonomous community.
    • Fecha (Date): Filters for grants awarded within a specific time period.
    • Importe concedido (Amount granted): Allows filtering for subsidies above or below a certain value.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for the Subsidies Database

This protocol provides a workflow for turning subsidy data into strategic leverage.

Phase 1: Adversary & Sectoral Intelligence Gathering

  • Step 1.1: Competitor Subsidy Audit: For any key competitor or adversary, run a search for their NIF or name in the Beneficiario field. The goal is to create a complete dossier of all public subsidies they have received. Quantify their level of dependency on public funds.
  • Step 1.2: Thematic Grant Analysis: Use the Título de la convocatoria keyword search to find all grants related to a specific policy area (e.g., “artificial intelligence,” “renewable energy”). This identifies all companies being state-funded to operate in that space, revealing the government’s chosen “champions.”
  • Step 1.3: Granting Body Analysis: Use the Órgano convocante filter to analyze the grant-giving patterns of a specific public body. Are they consistently awarding grants to the same set of companies? This can be an indicator of a closed ecosystem or potential bias.

Phase 2: The “Hypocrisy & Contradiction” Protocol

This is the core protocol for generating leverage from this platform.

  • Step 2.1: Identify the Subsidy: From the audit in Step 1.1, identify a significant subsidy received by a target company. Note the purpose of the grant (e.g., for environmental improvements, for worker training).
  • Step 2.2: Find the Contradictory Violation: Immediately run the beneficiary company through our other intelligence tools, primarily Violation Tracker UK (and its Spanish equivalents). The goal is to find a direct contradiction. For example:
    • The company received a large environmental grant, but Violation Tracker shows they were recently fined for pollution.
    • The company received a grant for job creation, but their financial reports (from InfoCIF) show significant layoffs.
  • Step 2.3: Document the Evidence: Compile a simple but powerful dossier containing two pieces of evidence: the official record of the subsidy from this portal, and the official record of the violation.

Phase 3: Strategic Action

  • Step 3.1: Challenge the Subsidy: The documented contradiction is grounds for a formal complaint to the granting body and potentially to an anti-fraud office. The argument is that the beneficiary has obtained public funds under false pretenses or has violated the terms of the subsidy.
  • Step 3.2: Create Leverage Against the Beneficiary: This evidence can be used as leverage in a separate legal dispute. A company facing the potential revocation of its public subsidies may be more willing to settle another matter on favorable terms.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model directly executes our strategies for creating leverage and challenging public decisions.

Mind Map Doctrine Application of the National Subsidies Database Model
Challenge Discrpower / Enforcement Gap The “Hypocrisy & Contradiction” protocol (Phase 2) is the primary mechanism for identifying a clear “Enforcement Gap”. We use this to “Challenge the Discretionary Power” of the body that awarded the grant, questioning their due diligence.
State Aid (EC/CMA) This database is the starting point for identifying potentially illegal State Aid in Spain. A grant that appears to give a selective advantage to one company over others can be flagged for a potential complaint to the European Commission.
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis The Competitor Subsidy Audit (Step 1.1) is a key part of our competitor analysis. Understanding a rival’s reliance on state funding is a critical indicator of their true financial health and political connections.
Noisefilter A company’s public statements about their commitment to sustainability are just noise. The record of them receiving environmental subsidies while also being fined for pollution is the signal that matters.
PTW (Political Time Window) The discovery of a major contradiction (e.g., a politically connected company receiving large grants while violating the law) has maximum impact if revealed during a sensitive time, such as a debate on the budget of the granting ministry.

Leave a Reply