ADOPTING A LOBBYING STRATEGY

Source: Daniel Guéguen- European Lobbying

Lobbying strategies can be divided into four categories (negative, defensive, reactive, or pro-active) with two variables (the soft or hard method).

Negative lobbying strategies

A strategy is considered to be negative when the actions towards government authorities are systematically negative. There is a dual definition of negative: it is a strategy of opposing, blocking and refusing, but without proposing any credible alternatives. Opposing a legislative proposal is not in itself a bad thing. And from time to time, due to lack of time or alternatives, there is no other solution and you must squarely oppose a legislative text and aspire to slow down its adoption, or even to block it. Such negative lobbying is not very pleasant to carry out as it has limited value, but as long as it remains an exception it is acceptable. Much more troubling are systematically negative lobbying campaigns, that is to say, those that have a deliberate strategy of permanent opposition.

Defensive lobbying strategies

This is about defending an advantage that you have gained, and opposing any evolution in the legislation. In the same way that negative strategies are destined to fail, defensive strategies are also doomed in the long term. One can appreciate the need for a defensive strategy when the situation calls for it, but if the defensive action lasts for too long it leads unavoidably to failure.

Reactive lobbying strategies

The word reactive can create some confusion. Reactive strategies are based on waiting, taking no action, and having no strategy, they are almost anti-strategies! Moreover, it is not possible to have “hard” reactive strategies, since we necessarily see a “soft” approach here! These reactive strategies are sadly very common, and even very fashionable. They are indicative of a period which lacks audacity, has weak decision-making powers, and a very politically correct approach to problems. In short, it is a very dull and very low profile approach to lobbying and government relations.  Numerous companies and trade associations function on a reactionary basis:

• lack of anticipation (they wait as long as possible before acting!),
• no decision-making capacity (lowest common denominator),
• lack of initiative (an administrative approach to lobbying),
• avoidance of all conflict with the authorities or stakeholders. If negative and defensive strategies are losing strategies, reactive strategies are symbolic of paralysis and lack of influence. In this respect, it is surprising to see that many corporations are happy to finance reactive and inefficient trade associations through their membership fees: This is no doubt why many  associations are confronted by their members and are under pressure to change. It is also why many corporations become tired of the poor performance of their associations, and orient themselves towards new lobbying structures, which are less representative but much more effective

Proactive lobbying strategies

Different pro-active strategies have several common characteristics:

• Ideally, they are anticipatory (but this is not essential, as a pro-active strategy can also be used within short deadlines or during crisis situations).
• All the evidence shows that they are dedicated strategies: with strong convictions, personal involvement, a spirit of partnership and a focus on results.
• More fundamentally, they are based on the pursuit of an acceptable solution. By creating a transversal alliance bringing together different elements of the production chain (from producers to consumers), they deliver to the authorities or legislator a ready-made consensus of economic actors and civil society representatives.
• The three key tools for a pro-active strategy are credibility (credible arguments, personal credibility …), transparency (clear motives, structural transparency, truth …) and construction of a transversal alliance. Two branches of pro-active lobbying co-exist: friendly pro-active strategies and hostile pro-active strategies (like friendly and hostile takeovers).

Friendly pro-active lobbying strategies

These are essentially anticipatory strategies in the upstream phase (preparation of a legislative or regulatory proposal). The friendly pro-active strategy consists of beginning at the earliest possible stage and meeting the key actors before any text has been written. The contacts with the key actors can be: at the political level to feel the temperature of a case and formulate a position, with high-level officials  for a strategic exchange on a draft legislative proposal, a future White or Green Paper, or more modestly with the draftsperson of the proposal who is one of your key contacts.

These anticipatory contacts are received very favourably: very few people are involved, and they are very open to discussion. Nothing is formalised, and all the alternatives can be explored openly. Even better, all your competitors and rivals are probably out of the loop because they are uninformed or unprepared. Then you are alone in the game and for several days or weeks, you benefit from a considerable margin for influence. Friendly pro-active lobbying strategies can be used at any stage of the decision-making process. They are different from the classic strategies as they favour credible arguments, strong convictions and a belief in transversal solutions with as wide a spectrum as possible, from producer to consumer

Hostile pro-active lobbying strategies

These strategies concern two situations: during the drafting phase when there are tight deadlines: your approach to the authorities was too late (first hypothesis) and/or the authorities have rejected your arguments and refuses to take them into consideration (second hypothesis);  In both cases, the hostile pro-active lobbying strategy will be about turning your back on the authorities with whom no compromise is possible. Opposing the authorities is in no way contradictory to the idea of a pro-active strategy. An “anti-authorities action’ is not based on bad will, or defensive or reactive policy, but on the conviction that the authorities’ proposal is a bad one and that your alternative is superior. In other words you disagree with the authorities.