THE AMERICAN LOBBY IN BRUSSELS

The EU is a highly lucrative market for US-owned firms with large direct investments. The enormous volume of these investments makes it difficult to separate ‘European’ from ‘American’ business interests in the EU. American companies have developed their own political links to the EU. In particular the American Chamber to the European Union (AmCham EU) is an important agent of US influence in Brussels. Most of its members are concerned with ensuring that the political- legal framework in Europe is conducive to their business interests. The most influential American actors in terms of day-to-day EU policymaking are primarily private actors who wield a potent and unique combination of structural and ‘soft power. The AmCham EU is an important information source for U.S. companies, many of which have set up their European headquarters in Brussels.

The American lobby in Brussels combines private and public resources. The US Mission in Brussels is the most important “public” face of the American lobby. It is the arm of the American government which is most often at the front-line of relations with the Union. Admittedly, the US Mission must serve and promote a general “American interest” which is broader than the relatively narrow interests of the members of the AmCham EU. Still, the US Mission and the AmCham EU are usually on the same side of most issues. EU policymaking reinforces this public/private linkage: it is a complex process of mainly informal bargaining between networks of actors, including representatives of European governments and EU institutions. Private actors have important opportunities to promote their own interests and to shape policy at the supranational level, particularly at the crucial, early stages of decision-making when the Commission first formulates formal proposals. The AmCham EU often is consulted (usually discreetly) during the early, crucial stages of policy formulation, when the Commission seeks advice from a relatively few “resourceful interest groups and other policy specialists which are most able to play an active role in influencing decision-making”

The AmCham EU can offer discreet, reliable advice and information that may prove crucial in deciding arguments between different units of the Commission. Consequently, the AmCham EU tends to lead the “American lobby” in Brussels, and thus has a decided advantage in influencing the US position on matters of EU policy.

Ultimately, the AmCham EU is usually the most influential American actor in EU policymaking. It wields a unique sort of power in Brussels. In important respects, it is structural in that it arises from the deep embeddedness of its firms in the EU’s economy. Yet, the AmCham EU’s power is also "soft" in that it arises largely from gathering, processing and disseminating reliable information.

Nearly all of the largest and most powerful American-owned multinationals invest heavily in Europe and belong to the AmCham EU. It is a common perception in Brussels that, compared to their European counterparts, American companies are much more mobile and willing to move their operations around or out of Europe to benefit from market situations. As a consequence, one could argue that American firms possess greater structural power than do European companies.

However, structural power does not translate automatically into influence or access. In fact, while the AmCham EU’s identity as a collection of “European firms of American parentage” is clear and unadulterated, it is a double-edged sword. Despite the effectiveness of its working methods and the quality of its position papers, the AmCham EU is still perceived as representing American-owned industry. There are important limits on the extent to which the AmCham EU can be an “insider” in the Union’s policy process. The AmCham EU thus must work with and through other actors, particularly ones that have a “European” identity. Accordingly, it must develop resources that are fungible , in the sense that they empower any actor regardless of their identity. The AmCham EU’s lack of a European identity and or a national patron which can assure access, means it must nurture its “soft power,” or ability to influence the policy process in subtle ways which do not involve heavy-handed or aggressive lobbying. The solution is information. The AmCham EU produces many position papers  on a variety of EU legislative matters. Over time, the high quality of these and other AmCham EU publications have acted to foster its reputation in Brussels for compiling, processing and disseminating reliable and useful information. Commission officials often acknowledge making direct use of data or ideas found in AmCham EU’s white papers . Moreover, members of the AmCham EU  appear to share information and cooperate more generally far more readily than is normally the case with American firms. One consequence is that little appears to arise on the EU agenda that catches the largest American firms by surprise. The AmCham EU has developed a complex and expert structure of specialist committees which represent an unrivalled network of advance intelligence within the EU.

Information only translates into power if it is managed carefully. In this context, the AmCham EU is highly-skilled at “issue management:” the early identification of an impending EU proposal, the making of contacts with the appropriate officials and the writing of timely position papers. The AmCham EU often offers complete and explicit alternatives to proposed legislation. It often develops “ready-made” amendments to Commission proposals which can be picked up and “run with” by the European Parliament. Above all, the AmCham EU has become the primary source of reliable information on single market legislation. The AmCham EU’s extensive track record as a source of reliable information is crucial because of the way in which benefits accrue exponentially to actors which are present, reliable and useful to the EU’s hard-pressed and under-resourced institutions for long periods of time.

“Soft power” imposes limits. The AmCham EU cannot change EU decisions outright, or force the Union into doing anything that it would not otherwise do. But the EU’s command of information gives it access to and often influence within multiple Directorates-General (DG) within the Commission. Crucially, it thus can influence the outcomes of games of bureaucratic politics, which are a primary feature of EU policy-making. Thus, the AmCham EU has long nurtured its links to many DGs.

AmCham EU Members

1. 3M
2. AbbVie
3. Accenture
4. ADM
5. AES
6. Afore Consulting
7. Albermarle
8. Alcoa
9. Amazon.com
10. American Airlines
11. American Express
12. Amgen
13. Amway
14. APCO
15. Applied Materials
16. Arnold & Porter LLP
17. AT&T
18. Avon
19. Baker Botts
20. Bank of America Merrill Lynch
21. Barclays
22. Baxter
23. BDO
24. Biogen
25. Boeing
26. BorgWarner
27. Bristol-Myers Squibb
28. British American Tobacco
29. Brunswick
30. Burson Marsteller
31. CA Technologies
32. Cabinet DN
33. Cargill
34. Caterpillar
35. Charles Schwab
36. Chevron
37. Chubb Insurance
38. Cicero
39. Cisco
40. Citi
41. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
42. CNH Industrial
43. Cognizant
44. Covington
45. Crowell Moring
46. Daimler
47. Dell
48. Diageo
49. DLA Piper
50. Dow
51. Dow Corning
52. Du Pont
53. EPPA
54. Ernst & Young
55. ExxonMobil
56. Facebook
57. FedEx Express
58. Fidelity Investments
59. First Data
60. First Solar
61. Fleishman Hillard
62. Foley & Lardner LLP
63. Ford
64. Freshfields
65. FTI Consulting
66. General Electric
67. GM
68. Goldman Sachs
69. Goodyear Dunlop Europe
70. Google
71. Gore Creative Technologies
72. Gowan Group
73. GSK
74. Hasbro
75. Herbalife Nutrition
76. Hill + Knowlton Strategies
77. Hogan Lovells
78. Honeywell
79. HP
80. IBM
81. Intel
82. Interel
83. International Paper
84. J.P. Morgan
85. John Deere
86. Johnson and Johnson
87. Johnson Controls
88. Keller and Heckman LLP
89. Kreab Gavin Anderson
90. Latham & Watkins LLP
91. Levi Strauss & Co
92. Liberty Global
93. Lilly
94. Linklaters
95. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton
96. LyondellBasell
97. Mars Incorpoarted
98. Marsh & McLennan Companies
99. MasterCard Worldwide
100. Mattel
101. Mayer Brown
102. Mc Donald
103. McGuireWoods
104. McKinsey& Company
105. MetLife
106. Michelin
107. Microsoft
108. Monsanto
109. Morgan Lewis
110. Morgan Stanley
111. Motorola Solutions
112. MSD
113. Nielsen
114. Nike
115. Norton Rose Fulbright
116. O’Melveny & Myers LLP
117. Oracle
118. P&G
119. PartyLite
120. Pfizer
121. Philip Morris International
122. Pitney Bowes
123. Qualcomm
124. Quinn Emanuel
125. RELX Group
126. SAS
127. SheppardMullin
128. Shire
129. Sidley Austin LLP
130. Skadden
131. Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services
132. StanleyBlack&Decker
133. Steptoe
134. Swift
135. Symantec
136. Syngenta
137. Synopsys
138. TE Connectivity
139. Tenneco
140. The Carlyle Group
141. The Coca Cola Company
142. The Walt Disney Company EMEA
143. Thomson Reuters
144. TimeWarner
145. Tyco
146. United Technologies
147. UPS
148. Van Bael & Bellis
149. Verizon
150. Weber Shandwick
151. WestRock
152. White & Case
153. Wiley
154. WilmerHale
155. Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
156. Yahoo!
157. Zurich