“Our democracy cannot function without lobbying”, according to Daniel Freund, Policy Officer at Transparency International. “The representation of diverse interests is an essential part of a healthy democracy.” If this is true, then Brussels is a very healthy place indeed.
Boasting one of the highest concentrations of political power in the world, the EU’s de facto capital is second only to Washington DC in terms of lobbying. Studies from Corporate Europe Observatory show that an estimated 30,000 lobbyists call the capital home, and not a working day passes without a word from at least a dozen or so of them. As the EU political process allows any parties concerned about issues like employment, the environment, or any number of other policy discussion points to have a bearing on the debate, lobbying plays an important function in EU policy.
The mere fact that transparency is missing from a process designed to foster an open and democratic dialogue between people and policymakers is enough to sully the reputation of
any involved
This being said, there is a real and pressing concern that too many of these discussions take place behind closed doors, and the sway lobbyists have on EU affairs is often obscured – whether intentionally or not – from the public eye. “The general perception of lobbying among the wider public is, of course, not very good. People associate undue influence, corruption, backroom deals and revolving doors with lobbying”, said Freund.
Suspicious trends
These same fears worsened earlier in the year when a report, published by Transparency International, offered an analysis of the state of lobbying in Brussels, looking at the seven months to December 2014. The report found that over 75 percent of the European Commission’s 4,318 meetings were attended by corporate lobbyists, and the extent and frequency of these meetings pointed to a climate in which industry groups exercise a disproportionate degree of influence over political affairs.
Compared to NGOs, think tanks and local authorities, who appeared in only 18 percent, four percent and two percent of the meetings, the imbalance reinforces the widely held opinion that corporate interests have too great an influence on political proceedings. What’s clear also is that there’s a strong correlation between lobby budgets and access – only one company with an annual spend of less than €900,000 (Airbus) featured in 10 or more high-level meetings. With this in mind, it’s no surprise that Google, GE and Microsoft attended more meetings than any other party.
Certainly, corporate lobbying occupies a great deal of time, and those with bigger budgets have better access to policymakers. While the results confirm that this much is true, they do not necessarily indicate that anything untoward is happening in these meetings. Despite much of what has been said, the issue is not that some parties have better access, but that any instances of undue influence can too easily slip under the radar. “We don’t think that there is good and bad lobbying”, noted Freund. “All interests – whether that is the creation of jobs or the protection of the environment – are legitimate and should be allowed to put forward their arguments in a political debate. What is important, however, is that the process is transparent and that all actors respect certain rules.”
Regulate and control
Of the 19 EU member nations in the Transparency International study, only seven have laws in place to target lobbying, and even then most are either too timid or poorly implemented to have much effect. The public perception of lobbying as a practice riddled with corruption exists precisely because of inadequate regulation, and as long as there are few to no safeguards in place to protect against corruption, public suspicion will remain.
“Our detailed research shows that lobbying in Europe is not sufficiently regulated. In a two-year study on the situation of lobbying in 19 EU member states and the three EU institutions, we identified a number of shortcomings, made detailed policy recommendations and established a ranking, based on 65 indicators, on how good lobby regulation actually is”, said Freund.
With regard to both Brussels and decision-making on a national scale, there is concern among citizens about the part played by lobbyists. Olivier Hoedeman, Research and Campaign Coordinator for Corporate Europe Observatory, noted that in a poll undertaken in 2013, covering six European countries, 73 percent of respondents were concerned about the role of corporate lobbying in EU decision-making. 80 percent of the sample wanted mandatory regulation of lobbying ‘to ensure a balanced participation of different interests in decision-making’. “These issues, for the first time ever, became a significant election campaign issue in a large number of EU countries in the run-up to the 2014 European Parliament elections”, said Hoedeman.
“At the EU level, we need a much better mandatory lobby register to provide reliable information on who is lobbying, for what, and how much money and how many lobbyists are they using for it. Secondly, we would like to see a legislative footprint that provides information on who has influenced a certain decision or law. That can be done by publishing meetings with lobbyists and by making their written input available to the public. On both issues the new Commission has made good progress: they publish meetings with lobbyists for commissioners and their closest advisors, and they publish input to consultations”, noted Freund.
Looking more closely at the steps taken so far, they apply to only 238 of 33,000 officials – or the top one percent – and are far from capable of overturning wide-held fears of corruption. “In the EU lobby transparency register, for instance, many companies and law firms that do lobbying are missing, while those that are registered often provide very limited and unreliable information. Rules to control the revolving door between the EU institutions and industry lobbying, as well as measures to prevent industry dominance of EU advisory groups, remain inadequate”, observed Hoedeman.
Frosted glass
Essentially, the issue is that citizens are not adequately informed about the steps leading up to any policy decision. The mere fact that transparency is missing from a process designed to foster an open and democratic dialogue between people and policymakers is enough to sully the reputation of any involved. As it stands, the system needs an added dose of transparency, integrity and equality, if it is to escape the murkiness that has led EU citizens to question its legitimacy.
“If effective rules are in place to prevent privileged access and undue influence, contacts with lobbyists can be one of a number of ways for decision-makers to get informed and to learn about views of different stakeholders”, said Hoedeman. “If this happens in an open and transparent manner, with a diversity of different interests and voices being equally listened to, then this can be a healthy part of the democratic process. For EU decision-making, one of the key challenges is to go beyond the input of professional Brussels-based lobbyists (paid to represent different interests) and ensure a greater participation of citizens.”