ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES OF THE TOP TIER INTEREST GROUPS IN BRUSSELS

Measuring political influence is a hard problem. And depending on how you set about measuring it, you can come to very different conclusions. Brussels is a really crowded place. Every year, hundreds different organizations pay somebody to lobby on their behalf. But if you’ve ever tried to push your way through a wall of people in a crowd, you’ll know it’s hard to get anywhere when countless others are blocking the way. It is the same way with Brussels  lobbying. In a political environment where demands and requests and entreaties are everywhere, it’s really hard to stand out. This means it’s really hard to get anything done.

Therefore, if you want to be an effective lobbying force, you need some real muscle. You need a kind of everywhere, all-the-time approach to lobbying. And this means hiring lobbyists who can create a constant presence. This constant presence means the ability to invest in multiple advocacy strategies at once, to build relationships and coalitions everywhere and anywhere, and to create a strong enough presence to discourage any political opponents from taking you on.

It’s also a strategy that is limited to a relatively small number of organizations,  (Top 100 groups) that is an exclusive club that is only getting more exclusive.

Elected and appointed officials carry out EU policymaking with tremendous constraints on their time and limited abilities to gather information. The result is that officials rely on their habitual practices and interactions to find acceptable , rather than search for the optimal solution using all available sources. Much political competition entails attempts to get politicians to focus on particular issues, problems, and concerns—the limited carrying capacity of the EU institutions means prioritization is paramount . Interest groups and lobbyists are prime sources of information in this frenzied environment, but they must develop relationships to become go-to sources. The continuing rise of new groups makes it more difficult to build these relationships and stand out from the noise . Some interest groups are able to develop identities as informed sources and representatives, dominating the flow of information and creating lasting reputations . These institutionalized groups become the taken-for-granted participants in policy debates, standing in for broader stakeholders . Because EU institutions’ official capacity is limited, only a small number of groups can become regularized participants in governance. Even if the total number of groups is growing, that should not change the number that can command the attention of policymakers. Like natural limits on the number of items individuals can hold in their short-term memory, policymakers can only keep a limited number of groups on their mind as important policy participants. An MEP office or EC civil servant can only attend to so many different concerns and perspectives, given limited information processing capacity . Being in the top tier of interest groups helps ensure that a group commands attention. It increasingly means being everywhere at all times: maintaining constant communication with the EC and MEP offices; playing a steering role in coalitions and associations; and effectively setting the boundaries of acceptable policy considerations. The role of the top tier is not just a consequence of inequality. It is a necessity given the limits of participation in an increasingly crowded lobbying space with limited EU attention . As the number of groups that can be heard is unchanging while the total mobilized is increasing, the proportion that have a voice is in decline and the cut-off point to make the top tier is continuing to increase. A larger community of groups requires more investment on the part of the top tier in order to have clout. More white noise means you need a bigger megaphone to be heard; a bigger crowd means you need more people and more resources to cut through the lines and be visible. . EC and EP offices are besieged with requests and pleadings and arguments. Only those who do the most lobbying or have the longest standing relationships get their concerns addressed. Regular high-level participation also signals that a group is a major player that is in Brussels to stay. Policymakers develop reciprocal ties to repeated players, meaning that continued involvement is necessary even if there is little chance that the EU will address those groups’ key concerns anytime soon. Actual policy influence should be even more concentrated at the top than measures of resources. If we could directly observe important meetings between interest groups and policymakers or the extent to which a group’s suggested language was incorporated into legislation, only a small group would make the cut for any influence at all. Top tier organizations have the resources to build the coalitions necessary to draft and see language through the often-tortuous EU legislative process. If a group is devoting the average amount of resources to lobbying, it may look that group has a reasonable chance to be heard. A small company or group may very well still be influential if its objective is obscure and uncontested, so long as they gain the attention of the right policymaker at the right time. But if that same organization is the 50th voice to weigh in a major policy debate, then its influence will likely be zero.  To put the interest organization in a position to substantially influence policy, it needs to be among those with the highest rates of consistent involvement. In addition, the top tier groups have the resources to play both offense and defense. Mostly, they win when they play defense. Those groups at the top are the most likely to have already “won” a favorable status quo.  If the wealthy are better mobilized and more prone to get what they want in Brussels, they should already have gotten what they wanted in previous rounds of the of the policy process.” Only occasionally do even the top interest groups get the changes they want when they play offense. Even if they get one of ten changes they seek, however, that one change could more than make up for the nine attempts that fail. And these privileged groups have the resources, connections, and reputation to keep trying to get what they seek, over and over. That is what being in the top tier allows—it provides the resources to set limits on the range of possible policy changes, as well as resources to keep generating new proposals and keep trying to move them forward.  Almost any company that is big enough to spend millions annually on lobbying benefits from the status quo (otherwise, it would not be in a position to spend that kind of money). These companies want even more favorable policy, but as long as they keep the status quo, they can continue to lead their industries. The logic applies to non-business interest groups as well.

Top 12 Highest Spending Lobbying Organisations in Brussels

Trade Associations

1. European Chemical Industry Council
2. EuroChambres
3. Association for Financial Markets in Europe
4. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
5. Insurance Europe
6. EuroCities

Companies

1. ExxonMobil
2. Shell Oil
3. Microsoft

Consultancies

1. Fleishman Hillard
2. Burson Marsteller
3. Interel European Affairs

Lobby Organisations in Brussels with most European Commission high level meetings

1. Business Europe
2. Google
3. WWF European Policy Programme
4. General Electric
5. EuroCommerce
6. European Chemical Industry Council
7. Airbus Group NV
8. Greenpeace European Unit
9. American Chamber to the European Union
10. Climate Action Network (CAN Europe)
11. European Steel Association (Eurofer)
12. EuroChambres
13. BEUC- Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs
14. Oxfam International EU Advocacy Office