Aucune remarque pour cette diapositive
EU-level lobbying in Brussels shows a number of distinctions when compared to lobbying at a national level. Those surveyed in Brussels have a far broader definition of a ‘lobbyist’than their national counterparts and have a higher perception of lobbying in terms of transparency and effectiveness.
Raising the local or national importance of an issue seems to be a less positive aspect than in previous surveys. While identified as the most positive aspect by 50% of respondents in 2009, only 20% of respondents in this year’s survey said it was the most positive aspect of lobbying.
48% of respondents in Brussels believe that ethical and transparent lobbying helps policy development, compared with an average of 25% across the EU. They see the main positive role of lobbying as ensuring the participation of social and economic actors and citizens in the political process and providing useful and timely information.
There is growing demand for mandatory regulation of lobbying, but this is a demand for transparency, not a rejection of lobbying. In fact, transparent stakeholders who understand the decision-making process and provide useful information are highly valued by policy-makers in Brussels.
In Brussels the weight given to transparency means that there is growing demand for further regulation in the form of a mandatory register (79%) and many expect it to come within the nextthree years (48%).
In the corporate sector, the energy and healthcare sectors were perceived to have the most effective lobbyists, scoring 68% and 60% respectively.With regard to NGOs, the lobbyists perceived to be the most effective are those working on the environment (52%) and human rights (49%) sector.
In Brussels the clear demand for transparency some companies continue to fail to be sufficiently transparent about the interests they represent (cited as a poor practice by 55% of respondents in Brussels – slightly higher than the European average 48%).
The problems for NGOs in Brussels are: the most frequently-committed poor practice is basing a position on emotion rather than facts (75%) and, unlike companies, being too early or too late in the process (50%).
In Brussels helpful sources of information include some cited at national level – internal meetings (84%), national authorities’ documents (78%) and written briefing material (75%) – but also many sources particularly valued in Brussels, including industry meetings (80% versus a European average of 62%) and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the EU institutions (87% compared with a European average of 52%). Industry associations’ websites (perceived as ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ by 53% of respondents), NGO websites (41%) and corporate websites (43%) are seen as usefultools – certainly more so than at national level, where the scores for each of these are around 30%.
Not be seen as particularly helpful, but respondents told us that they are still regular users of social media and digital information sources