About lobbying transparency

The concept of the ETI itself was developed in response to the need to “reconnect Europe with its citizens and close both the physical and mental gap that makes it difficult for people to understand what Europe does and why it matters.” The aims of the ETI have therefore been to “increase openness and accessibility of EU institutions, raise awareness over the use of the EU budget and make the Union’s institutions more accountable to the public” with the intention to promote transparency in EU policy-making.

The issue of lobbying has been central to the ETI debate from the very beginning. In his speech at the launch of the ETI in Nottingham in 2005, Commissioner Kallas himself commented that: “Lobbyists can have considerable influence on legislation, in particular on proposals of a technical nature... But their transparency is too deficient in comparison to the impact of their activities.”

The objective of the ALTER-EU’s campaign work has been, therefore, to ensure that comprehensive and mandatory rules on lobbying transparency and ethics become the tangible result of the ETI process.

However, the question of lobbying transparency and ethics has become one of the key and most debated components of the ETI process. The debate soon became polarised with opponents and supporters of lobbying disclosure dominating the discussion:

EPACA (the European Public Affairs Consultancies Association) and SEAP (the Society for European Affairs Professionals), the major organisation representing for profit lobbyists have been opposing mandatory lobbying disclosure, defending secrecy and privileged access by advocating "self-regulation", voluntary codes of conduct and registration. Commercial lobbyists have also been arguing against the inclusion of verifiable financial information concerning lobbying activities claiming that "money does not equate influence", that the process would be too burdensome and also contrary to their client’ right to privacy – although many of their clients are also US-based and have disclosed such information as part of the US regulation on lobby disclosure.

ALTER-EU has been concerned that a voluntary register will never “cover the landscape of European interest representatives as comprehensively as possible” or “ensure that decision-makers and the general public can identify and assess the strength of the most important driving forces behind a given lobbying activity” – two of the Commission’s stated objectives for the ETI Communication. For these reasons ALTER-EU has been advocating for a mandatory register and the development of a code of conduct for lobbyists, including the disclosure of financial information concerning lobbying activities. As Commissioner Kallas himself stated in his speech before the Federation of European and International Associations in Brussels: "Nobody would pay real money for lobby services without expecting something in return—and that something is influence."

In March 2007 the Commission announced a web-based public register for all lobbyist to be launched in Spring 2008 and be evaluated in Spring 2009. Registration would be voluntary in the register’s first year of trial period but a mandatory register would not be excluded if the Commission’s 2009 evaluation deemed the voluntary system ineffective in ensuring sufficient registration.

The register would classify registrants into 3 categories of lobbyists:

1. Professional consultancies and law firms;
2. In-house lobbyists and trade associations;
3. NGOs and think tanks.

Upon registration, financial information will have to be disclosed, indicating the “relative weight of a client in the total turnover”. Although the communication is not very detailed about this financial disclosure, it is clear that the commission will require lobbyists to disclose financial information about relevant budget figures and a breakdown of clients and/or funding sources.

The Commission has also begun consulting with individual business groups and CSOs about a code of conduct and a formal consultation process is expected to start in Autumn 2007.

The code of conduct will not replace existing code of conduct of public affairs’ associations (such as EPACA) but will define general principles for lobbyists to follow (such as honesty and transparency), though it will not include the issue of corruption – as this, the Commission maintains, is already foreseen for EU officials under separate staff rules.

Key dates of the ETI process

09th November 2005

Communication proposing the launch of the ETI

03rd May 2006

Adoption of the Green Paper on the ETI

May – August 2006

Public consultation on the Green Paper

13th December 2006

Adoption of revised financial regulation

21st March 2007

Communication on the Follow-up to the Green Paper ’European Transparency Initiative’

Summer 2007

Stakeholder consultation on code of conduct for lobbyists

Spring 2008

Launch of lobbying transparency register

Spring 2009

Evaluation of lobbying transparency register

Why lobbying transparency matters

More than 15.000 professional lobbyists currently roam the corridors of the EU institutions, a large majority representing business interests. Without rules on transparency and ethics for lobbying, the influence of corporate lobbyists on EU policy-making has largely remained out of public sight. The influence granted to corporate lobbyists in EU decision-making raises serious concerns over the impartiality of EU decision-making and its democratic principle. These include:

Privileged access: Corporate lobbyists are often being granted privileged access by EU decision-makers.

• In the Biofuels Research Advisory Council (BIOFRAC) – responsible for advising the European Commission on innovation policy for biofuels – the industry was represented in the council with 4 oil companies, 4 biofuel companies, 1 member from the food industry, 1 from a forestry company, 1 from an energy company and by EuropaBio, Europe’s large lobby association of biotech companies. There was also 1 farmer and 8 academics, some with close links to the oil and biotech industry, but not a single representative from the environmental movement. BIOFRAC’s corporate-bias was clearly reflected in its final report, issued in June 2006, "Biofuels in the European Union. A vision for 2030 and beyond" which then became an official European Commission document. The European Commission has created approximately 1350 expert groups similar to BIOFRAC that are involved in the pre-cooking of EU legislation and whose composition remains to a large extent secretive.

Revolving Doors: Personal contacts and inside knowledge are essential in the lobbying game. The fast-moving revolving door between EU institutions and the lobby sector secures a strong corporate influence over the decision-making process.

• Jean-Paul Mingasson, former Director-General of the European Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for Enterprise and Industry (2002 – 2004) and for Budget (1989 – 2002) left the European Commission in 2004 to work as General Adviser to BusinessEurope (former UNICE), the confederations of European industrialists. During his office at the EC, Mr Mingasson was personally involved in the EU’s revised legislation for the regulation of chemicals in Europe: REACH, against which he begun lobbying as General Advisor to BusinessEurope. Similar examples can be found plentiful in all other areas of European policy making. For example, James Currie, Former Director of DG Environment and responsible for Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection (1997-2001) and has become, since then, a paid Non-Executive Director of British Nuclear Fuels.

Dubious methods and pretence of independence: Corporate lobby campaigns often try to keep quiet about their true motives. Lobbyists pretend to come from non-profit organizations, set-up front groups or allegedly independent “experts”.

• In 2005 it was uncovered that the ‘Campaign for Creativity’ (C4C), whilst presenting itself as an organisation of artists, musicians, designers, software developers and other creative professionals, it was in reality orchestrated by Campbell Gentry, a public affairs firm. C4C has been highly active in lobbying members of the European Parliament to adopt strong protection on software patents, a position advantageous to large software multinationals. Whilst the website vaguely mentions that the campaign is “supported by” software multinationals Microsoft and SAP among others, and industry association CompTIA, the overall impression is of a campaign by creative individuals. When C4C was asked for details of how it was financed, no clear answers were provided and it remains unclear if C4C is truly an organisation that represents creative professionals or if this appearance is merely to the benefit of the software multinationals who finance the campaign.

Given these trends affecting policy-making at European level, ALTER-EU has been campaigning in favour of lobbying transparency and ethic regulation, especially with reference to the current European Transparency Initiative. Read more about ALTER-EU’s campaigning work and demands.