The fourth drawback is that of small businesses in a country. A multilateral agreement gives a competitive advantage to large multinationals. They are already familiar with the operation in a global environment. As a result, small businesses cannot compete. They lay off workers to reduce costs. Others relocate their factories to countries where living standards are lower. If a region depended on this industry, it would have high unemployment rates. This makes multilateral agreements unpopular. However, many multilateral agreements, which are not health and environmentally motivated or focused on, have a significant impact on both. For example, the Environment Directorate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has an environment and health office and has proven to be the driving force behind the use of coherent environmental policies in all Member States. Among his first articles was the establishment of an independent scientific monitoring of the drivers of acid rain and the fate and transport of the pollutants that cause it.
The OECD establishes global environmental assessments of countries by Member States, which include an environmental performance assessment, which promote transparency and can lead to changes in policies and processes. They also set mandatory testing standards for many toxins used in commercial products. Despite the perceived need, it is not yet possible to establish a legal framework for public policy and direct investment at the global level. What exists today is a complex web of bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements that are neither coded nor limited. Most international multilateral agreements on foreign direct investment focus on restrictions and requirements imposed on MNCs by national governments. These include trade barriers and performance requirements (DTTs), which aim to measure the impact of direct investment and protect economies from negative influences from MNCs. Other agreements (bilateral and regional agreements) focus on the protection of international property and the attractiveness of direct investment. The debate over international FDI and TRIM regulation began in the early 1980s, when safeguards and performance requirements were increasingly criticized by investors and PNCs for significantly distorting global trade and investment flows.
Supported by the governments of industrialized countries (particularly those of the OECD), these critics have tried to establish an international regulatory system that would achieve a level playing field, in which foreign investors would receive the same treatment as domestic firms. At the same time, the growing belief that foreign direct investment has had a significant positive impact on national economies has strengthened efforts by national governments to attract foreign direct investment. To avoid a „race to the bottom“ that would not benefit any country, it was also argued that an international legal framework was needed to do so directly. To date, these frameworks have been developed primarily at the level of common regional markets, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, APEC, Mercosur and the EU Economic Zone. In general, the agreements aim to promote FDI flows by creating a secure multilateral economic environment and allowing access to a wider market. Recent studies on the role of regional cooperation have shown that the proportion of FDI generally increases when countries join common markets. The fourth advantage is that countries can negotiate trade agreements with more than one country at the same time. Trade agreements are subject to a detailed authorisation procedure. Most countries would prefer to ratify an agreement covering many countries at the same time. In approving the negotiations, the OECD Council of Ministers set itself the goal of achieving a „broad multilateral framework for international investment, with