Because taxes and fines are two different things. Taxes aren't a punishment for a crime. Fines are proportional to a crime. Two of Amazon's 300+ warehouses were found to be breaking a labor law
Because you create a loophole where non-profitable companies commit the offense and get cash back (if fines were connected to revenue, negative revenue would become a reward)
If fines were tied to revenue, then non-profit wouldn't stop the fine. If you had $1200 in revenue, and $1000 in expenses, the fine could be calculated against rhe $1200, which is exactly what non-companies have to do.
And it would make sense to be revenue-based, as opposed to profit-based.
> up to 20,000,000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking [economic entity], up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher
I think the "whichever is higher" wording does make it a floor but you're right that the "up to" makes it whatever they want. So I guess it's a meaningless variable floor.
It still works out similarly: they could fine a company like Amazon, with a lot of revenue, up to around 21 billion (regardless of profit) while they could only fine a small company up to 20 million.