EU political integrity

Transparency International EU (TI EU) works hard to ensure that such activities are conducted in a transparent and ethical manner at EU level. Brussels is the second capital of the world in terms of lobbying activites after Washington DC.

At EU level, lobbying activities lack comprehensive regulation. The EU has implemented a joint transparency register spanning Commission, Council and Parliament, in which all organisations seeking to influence the policymaking process must declare their interests, EU legislation affected and their funding. But EU officials are still not necessarily required to only meet with the lobbyists on this register—while this is the case for the Commission, it does not apply to the Parliament.

We believe that the democratic decision-making process and institutions need to be protected by a comprehensive integrity system, which ultimately ensures ethical and open input from all interested stakeholders, including the requirement for the publication of meetings and legislative footprints for all EU policymakers. To this end, the EU institutions must also guarantee balanced access for lobbying organisations representing both citizen and business interests, allowing them to provide their expertise and input more equally. This would ultimately lead to better decisions and better laws for all European citizens.

We work hard to ensure that conflicts of interest in the EU decision-making process are managed openly and effectively. This means that a regulatory framework must ensure that policymakers do not have any potential or real conflicts of interest between the public office they occupy and any potential outside activity. Relevant office holders must declare their financial interests and assets, which can then be scrutinised and checked by the relevant oversight bodies as well as the public, civil society, and the media.

But simply declaring outside activities is far from enough. In the current European Parliament, for example, our analysis shows that that current MEPs have declared 1,678 side activities, or more than two per MEP, and that one in eight of these activities are with organisations on the EU transparency register. While the existence of side activities, particularly those that are paid, constitutes an inherent potential conflict of interest risk, this risk is heightened through imprecise job descriptions and a pervasive lack of oversight, leaving the EU legislative process considerably vulnerable to outside influence.

At TI EU, we believe that only a ban on side activities (with limited exceptions for professions in such sectors as education and healthcare) will prevent potential conflicts of interest.

For those limited exceptions, declarations should be submitted with as precise descriptions as possible, stating an MEP’s position, areas of focus, and remuneration. All notifications of lobbying or other activities with a potential conflict of interest should, therefore, be published on the Parliament’s website, in machine-readable format.

As for the Commission, Commissioner candidates should undergo a systematic assessment for potential conflicts of interest, that is independent of political considerations.

The 2022 revelations that former Commissioner Neelie Kroes had arranged to lobby for Uber during her tenure, and then subsequently helped the company circumvent EU regulations, are just one example in a line of revolving door scandals embroiling the EU institutions. The high demand for policy insiders, particularly among lobby organisations, requires strong ethics safeguards against undue influence.

The exchange of knowledge, experience, and personnel between the public and private sector can bring very positive results by providing a better understanding of how political decision-making works. But it can also constitute a covert lobbying operation, whereby policy know-how is effectively monetised by the private sector to circumnavigate regulation, or, where policy is simply made in favour of the private sector. This revolving door can also undermine trust in the EU, because of the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest. It can reinforce the public perception that links between the EU institutions and big business are too close.

The European Parliament has recently moved towards implementing a six-month ‘cooling off’ period for MEPs, preventing them from taking up lobbying activities in the first six months after losing their electoral mandate. But this is far from adequate: the first six months of an EU legislative term are historically inactive, meaning potential lobbyists would be able to pick up where they left off after the expiry of the cooling off period.

We call for stronger post-employment rules for the Commission and the Parliament: longer cooling-off periods equal to the time during which an MEP receives a transitional allowance from the taxpayer (from 5 to 24 months, depending on length of service); 36-month cooling-off periods for outgoing Commissioners, as well as tighter restrictions on the lobbying of EU institutions; and a well-resourced oversight system.

Whereas the European Parliament and the European Commission have made their policymaking processes more transparent, it remains virtually unattainable for citizens to understand how decisions are made in the Council. Finding out whether their national representatives were in favour or against certain provisions is almost impossible, standing in the way of meaningful participatory policymaking and the ability to hold national governments to account at EU level. Despite decisions by the European Court of Justice asking for greater transparency of Council decision-making, as well as calls by national parliaments, the European Ombudsman and civil society, the Council has been extremely reluctant to commit to any reforms that would increase transparency and accountability.

TI EU calls for the Council to fully commit to best practices in transparency by publishing detailed negotiating positions of Members States, overhauling its access-to-documents policy, increasing the transparency of the legislative process, and opening internal deliberations to the wider public.

For this to happen, data must be accessible, accurate, intelligible, and meaningful. In fact, there is a growing trend towards the increased publication and availability of open data – data that is freely shareable, comparable, and usable. For example, the G20 has opted to adopt open-data principles to help promote public integrity and reduce corruption. The international Open Data Charter and specific national initiatives have attempted to create a common foundation to accelerate this process.

The EU has seen progress, mainly driven by the EU Commission, in advancing the publication of information in open data format. This includes the launching of such platforms as the EU Open Data Portal and the Directorate General for Regional Policy’s portal on structural and investment funds. Despite these improvements, more robust EU policies and practices need to be put in place to maximise the use of open data to fight corruption.

Critical policy such as the European Critical Raw Materials Act, might tempt companies to offer bribes, as global players scramble to obtain mining rights. This is why exposing lobbying efforts, or any attempts to unduly influence the EU’s work towards a sustainable future, are so vital. Anti-corruption provisions for EU climate legislation must be strengthened, as well as due diligence on the key players involved in crafting it.

See our analysis on the conflict-of-interest risk in EU climate legislation here.

OpenBudgets.eu aims to bring more transparency and accountability to EU budgets and public spending by providing a one-stop-shop platform for EU budget and spending data. In cooperation with EU policy makers we will not only increase the transparency of the EU budget but also ensure that data is available in an open format. This will allow citizens, civil society organisations, journalists and policy makers to scrutinise budget allocations and expenditure to reduce the possibility of corruption.