Lobbying in the european union strategies, dynamics and trends

Doris Dialer Margarethe Richter Editors Lobbying in the European Union Strategies, Dynamics and Trends Lobbying in the European Union Doris Dialer • Margarethe Richter Editors Lobbying in the European Union Strategies, Dynamics and Trends Editors Doris Dialer Department of Political Science University of Innsbruck Innsbruck, Austria Margarethe Richter European Parliament Bruxelles, Belgium ISBN 978-3-319-98799-6 ISBN 978-3-319-98800-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98800-9 (eBook) Library of Congress Control Number: 2018960943 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Contents Lobbying in Europe: Professionals, Politicians, and Institutions Under General Suspicion? Doris Dialer and Margarethe Richter Part I Theoretical and Empirical Implications Interest Representation in the EU: An Open and Structured Dialogue? Justin Greenwood 21 Improving Interest Group Accountability LogFrame: A Framework for Evaluating Lobbying Campaigns Paul A Shotton 33 International Dynamics in Lobbying Regulation Michele Crepaz, Raj Chari, John Hogan, and Gary Murphy Informational Lobbying in the EU: Mechanisms of Probity, Dissembling, and Transparency Adam William Chalmers 49 65 Theoretical Implications of EU Funding of Advocacy Activities Rosa Sanchez Salgado 81 Reshaping European Lobbying: How to Be One Step Ahead Daniel Guéguen 93 Part II Influencing European Decision-Makers Lobbyists’ Appeal and Access to Decision-Makers: Case Study European Services Forum 105 Pascal Kerneis v vi Contents Reconciling Logics of Organizational Behaviour in the EU Public Consultations 115 Adriana Bunea 10 Lobbying in the European Parliament: Who Tips the Scales? 133 Maja Kluger Dionigi 11 Lobbyism in the EU Comitology System 149 Rikke Wetendorff Nørgaard, Peter Nedergaard, and Jens Blom-Hansen 12 Lobbying EU Agencies from Within: Advocacy Groups in Frontex Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights 165 Leila Giannetto 13 European Regions and Their Interests 185 Riccardo Trobbiani Part III Artists of Advocacy and Political Persuasion 14 The Food Sector: Mondelēz International in Brussels 207 Franz Kraus 15 Lobbying and “Economic Diplomacy” in China 215 Markus Klingler 16 SOLIDAR: NGO Advocacy for Social Justice in Europe 229 Conny Reuter 17 The European Consumer Organisation: Pioneer in Advocacy and Lobbying 239 Johannes Kleis 18 Insights from Practitioners: How to Improve Cooperation Between Ukrainian and EU Think Tanks 251 Olena Carbou (Prystayko) and Oleksandra Kryshtapovych Part IV Scandals, Ethics and Transparency 19 The European Ombudsman: Promoting a Transparent and Ethical EU Administration 265 Richard More O’Ferrall 20 The European Union’s Revolving Door Problem 273 Margarida Silva Contents vii 21 Getting Past the Lobby! The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) 291 Femi Oluwole 22 Legal and Ethical Rules in EU Decision-Making: “Soft Law” for Targets and Actors of Lobbying 305 Julian Grad and Markus Frischhut 23 Navigating the Gray Zones of Third-Party Lobbying via Nonprofits: Transparify’s Experiences with Think Tanks and Fake News 329 Till Bruckner Part V Trade Agreements and Interest Representation 24 Outside Lobbying and the Politicization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 339 Niels Gheyle and Ferdi De Ville 25 Shaping Globalization: Trade Policy and the Role of US Business 355 Timothy Adamson 26 The Representation of SME Interests in the TTIP Negotiations: A German Case Study 363 Matthias Götz 27 Transatlantic Trade Negotiatons, Civil Society Campaigns and Public Opinion 375 Leif Johan Eliasson 28 Business Lobbying in International Investment Policy-Making in Europe 389 Robert Basedow Part VI Trends and Perspectives 29 British Interest Representation in the European Union After Brexit 403 Doru Frantescu and Andrei Goldis 30 Shaping Lobbying Impact: How Everything from Seating Arrangements to Natural Disasters Makes a Difference 415 Glenn Cezanne 31 Lobbying and Interest Group Influence in EU Foreign Policy 425 Natalia Shapovalova viii Contents 32 Silicon Valley Meets Brussels: ICT Lobbying on the Fast Lane 435 Jakob Kucharczyk 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 445 Jesper Dahl Kelstrup and Doris Dialer List of Figures Fig 3.1 Fig 3.2 Fig 3.3 Example logic trees showing “means to end” Example of a LFA matrix Example of a LFA matrix with indicators 40 40 44 Fig 5.1 Fig 5.2 Fig 5.3 Fig 5.4 Reasons why decision-makers speak with lobbyists Poor lobbying practices in the EU (%) Inappropriate influence peddling by lobbyists a problem (%) Are rewards for compliance/penalties for violations effective? (%) Should transparency be mandatory or voluntary? (%) 71 72 73 Fig 5.5 Fig 7.1 Fig 7.2 Fig 7.3 Fig 9.1 The Community Method Transformation in all three phases of the decision-making process New methodology for public affairs 74 75 94 95 98 Inter-organizational linkages in the consultation on CO2 emissions where diamond and box shapes are business interest organizations; triangle, environmental NGOs; plus sign, national authorities; and circle, local authorities The size of the node corresponds to the number of ties an interest organization has with other stakeholders On the left-hand side, interest organizations that are isolates Description of name acronyms: made available upon request by the author 124 ix x Fig 9.2 Fig 9.3 List of Figures Inter-organizational linkages in the consultation on including aviation activities in the ETS scheme where diamond and box shapes are business interest organizations; triangle, environmental NGOs; plus sign, national authorities; and circle, local authorities The size of the node corresponds to the number of ties an interest organization has with other stakeholders On the left-hand side, interest organizations that are isolates Description of name acronyms: made available upon request by the author 125 Inter-organizational linkages in the consultation on the revision of the WEEE directive where diamond and box shapes are business organizations; triangle, environmental NGOs; plus sign, national authorities; and circle, local authorities The size of the node corresponds to the number of ties an interest organization has with other stakeholders On the left-hand side, interest organizations that are isolates Description of name acronyms: made available upon request by the author 126 Graph 12.1 Use of “human rights” or “fundamental rights” in Frontex annual reports 178 Fig 22.1 Fig 22.2 Overview stakeholders 308 Overview stakeholders, relevant documents, and key terms 313 Fig 27.1 Youtube.com searches for TTIP June 2013–November 2016 Source: Google Trends 381 Web searches ISDS June 2013–November 2016 Source: Google Trends 381 Public opinion on TTIP 2014–2016 Source: Standard Eurobarometers 82–85 383 Fig 27.2 Fig 27.3 Fig 28.1 World inward FDI stock in trillion US Dollars (1980–2012) Source: UNCTAD (2016b) 390 Fig 29.1 The matching rates between the UK Conservative Party and other right-wing parties within the European Parliament 408 The matching rates between the UK Labour Party and other left-wing parties within the European Parliament 409 Fig 29.2 Chapter 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice Jesper Dahl Kelstrup and Doris Dialer Introduction Although definitions vary, think tanks can broadly be understood as organizations which claim autonomy and attempt to influence public policy by mobilizing research (Kelstrup 2016, 10) Through their mobilization of ideas, advice, and suggestions for policy decisions, think tanks hold potentials for supplying expertise to the policy process at a faster pace than academia and in a more rigorous way than consultancies, lobbyists, or media outlets Nevertheless, think tanks may also lend support to pre-established views and fail to challenge and develop existing policy paradigms The capacity of think tanks to challenge policy-making is particularly precarious among think tanks in the policy environment of Brussels, where many think tanks receive funding from the EU institutions The European Commission thus shaped the growth of the Brussels think tank scene by providing grants via the “Europe for Citizens” program (Dialer and Füricht-Fiegl 2014a, b) The role and development of think tanks in EU public policy is interesting but complex Previous studies have found that the development of think tanks in the EU policy community is lagging behind the development of think tanks in the United States (US) A decade ago, think tanks in the EU were portrayed as small organizations, with access to less funding in particular from private sources and less visibility and transparency than their US counterparts (Lahrant and Boucher 2004) Think tanks in the EU therefore did not match their “big brothers” in the US in terms of J D Kelstrup (*) Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: kelstrup@ruc.dk D Dialer European Integration, Department of Political Science, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria e-mail: doris.dialer@uibk.ac.at © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 D Dialer, M Richter (eds.), Lobbying in the European Union, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98800-9_33 445 446 J D Kelstrup and D Dialer policy impact Instead the literature saw think tanks as a diverse set of organizations that could work from within the European Commission, in interaction and with partial funding from the Commission, from the national level or as interest groups with think tank characteristics (Sherrington 2000) In addition, think tanks were seen as organizations that operated with some distance to the policy process and with a long-term focus by generating ideas, analysis, and debate (Ullrich 2004) Studies of think tanks in foreign policy have shown the role of think tanks in delivering ideas, which work as support or resistance to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in Britain, France, and Germany after the end of the Cold War (Howorth 2004), the role of think tanks in developing policies and ideas in Russia (Klinke 2012) and China (Callahan 2007) or in shaping ideas about European security (Berling 2012) Previous studies have also emphasized the different roles of think tanks in representing the EU in public spheres in Britain (Garcia-Blanco and Wahl-Jorgensen 2013) or in France (Dressler et al 2012) The lack of a connection between the career aspirations of policy professionals working at think tanks in Sweden and the EU level has also been identified in the literature (Svallfors 2016) Interestingly, most of the Brussels-based think tanks are of Anglo-American origin, including some with a Eurosceptic stance (e.g., Open Europe1) (Boucher and Royo 2012, 98–101) In recent decades, the role of think tanks has become increasingly recognized and linked to the discussion of public policy and the public sphere in the EU Established and esteemed multi-issue think tanks such as the Centre for Policy Studies (CEPS), European Policy Centre (EPC), and Friends of Europe (FoF) have been supplemented by newer single-issue think tanks including the Lisbon Council (2003), Bruegel (2005), and the so-called Eurofoundations (2007) with affiliations to the Political Parties at the European level (Europarties) In 2012, the European Commission’s internal think tank the Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA), now known as the European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC),2 portrayed think tanks as ‘ the closest thing to a fledging common European “public sphere” ’ (BEPA 2012, 13) In addition, most of these organizations have enlisted in the voluntary transparency register under the separate heading: “think tanks, research and academic institutions.” On 26 June 2018, there are 914 (out of 11,794) registrants in this subsection of the transparency register (EU Transparency Register 2018) Despite increased interest in EU think tanks, knowledge concerning their strategies to exert influence and essentially to stay in business remain under-researched The more public role of think tanks leads to a stronger need for think tanks to balance different concerns in their The Open Europe think tank is of a moderately Eurosceptic persuasion but took a “neutral” position in the referendum campaign The European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC) is the European Commission’s in-house think tank, established in November 2014 by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and operating directly under his authority In January 2017, the EPSC was awarded the title of “Best New Think Tank 2016” by the authoritative Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of the University of Pennsylvania, in its prestigious “2016 Global Go To Think Tank Index,” which charts 6846 think tanks on the basis of a survey conducted among over 4750 journalists, policymakers, think tankers, and donors from all over the world (McGann 2017) 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 447 involvement in policy-making in the EU If their work is perceived as being remote from the policy agenda, it is likely to be dismissed as irrelevant or overtly academic by stakeholders and policy-makers If a think tank, on the other hand, associates itself too one-sidedly with lobby groups or commercial interests, its autonomy and credibility are likely to be questioned in public This was the case with the involvement of the European Policy Centre (EPC) in promoting regulatory decision-making under the heading “Better Regulation” as part of a front group financed by British American Tobacco (BAT) in the 1990s (Smith et al 2015) This chapter meets a demand for more in-depth knowledge about the strategies, which think tanks employ to influence EU policy-making The main task of this chapter is therefore to explore the strategies, which think tanks use to exert influence in the policy community around and within the EU institutions including how think tanks have adjusted their strategies (or not) in response to competition from other think tanks The chapter proceeds by presenting strategic advice for think tanks developed for the US context (Selee 2013) The strategies of think tanks are studied based on desktop research and interviews with practitioners in management positions at two selected think tanks at the EU level: The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) As Selee’s advice is developed in the US context, the analysis below provides an indication of the extent to which advice developed in the US is used in the EU The chapter thus provides a two-way street for developing think tank strategies On the one hand, it determines the extent to which theoretical recommendations are used in practice On the other hand, it captures how strategic consideration from practitioners might inspire and nuance advice for successful think tank strategies in the EU and beyond Strategic Advice for Think Tanks The focus on strategic advice or innovation was first brought up in the US, where think tanks operate in an increasingly information-rich and highly digitalized environment To reach occupied policy-makers, think tanks have to find a balance between analytical credibility and “just-in-time” information using media platforms effectively With limited private and public funding, think tanks have to cope with more short-term, project-based funding and engage policy-makers that may be keener on responding to pressing short-term challenges than on tackling long-term crises James G McGann, a US-based scholar and inventor of the Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, argues that think tanks’ potential to support and enrich democratic governments and civil societies by conducting policy research, developing policy options, facilitating dialogue between diverse stakeholder groups, and stimulating public debates is far from exhausted Yet, according to McGann, in a donordriven marketplace of ideas, the think tank sector is facing mainly four major challenges: competition, resources, technology, and policy To effectively respond 448 J D Kelstrup and D Dialer to these “threats,” think tanks need to focus on the “four M’s”: mission, market, manpower, and money Thus, having a sound forward looking strategy is becoming crucial for institutional survival (McGann 2016) In most European countries, the development of think tanks follow trajectories which depend on the institutional differences in the regulation of the economy as more liberal or coordinated and in more centralized or decentralized policy-making (Campbell and Pedersen 2014) Although policy-making in the EU has been institutionalized over time, the actual and desired role of the EU is contested to a larger extent than in most of its member states Nevertheless, the development and recognition of interest representation and policy advice from outsiders (Coen and Richardson 2009) have been conducive to the development of think tanks in the EU over time (Kelstrup 2018) Think tanks now regularly supply ideas and policy advice, which is in demand in key institutions such as the Commission, the European Parliament, and among the representatives of the member states in the Council of Ministers Because think tanks have developed earlier and more forcefully in the US than in Europe, the US is the most obvious, albeit not the only, reference point for think tanks In examining the strategies of selected EU think tanks, we therefore also discuss the extent to which think tanks in the EU draw on recommendations that are used in the US context (Selee 2013) Five Strategic Think Tank Questions Think tanks may focus on influencing different stages of the policy cycle By focusing on framing ideas and issues, think tanks can gain the advantage of influencing policy-making in the early phases of the policy cycle, where policy-makers are assumed to be more open to new ideas (Gueguen 2008) Think tanks may also focus on providing policy alternatives in order to make other options open to policymakers or on shaping decision-making if they have the resources to develop alternatives and policy ideas (Selee 2013, 9) The home pages of EU think tanks such as Bruegel, CEPS, and the EPC contain an abundance of publications and policy ideas, which lend support to existing ideas, criticize them, or provide new alternatives for policies Some think tanks also invest in developing tools which can be used to evaluate policies Examples include the European Foreign Policy Scorecard published by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR 2017) and the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Transformation Index for developing and transition countries (Bertelsmann Foundation 2016) Although interesting in themselves, these ideas and initiatives tell us little about the strategies, which EU think tanks use to gain influence Competition for both money and influence is likely to challenge think tanks to develop or maintain a demand for their expertise in decision-making circles In order to study think tank strategies in a competitive policy environment, it is useful to observe how 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 449 think tanks in the EU respond to five strategic questions which have been posed to think tanks in the US context (Selee 2013, 13): What does the organization want to achieve? What does the organization that makes a unique contribution? Who are the organization’s key audiences and how does it reach them? What resources does the organization need and how can it develop them? How does the organization evaluate impact and learn from its experience? Regarding the first question, think tanks usually respond with a slogan or punch line to indicate what they work to achieve In devising a slogan, however, think tanks face a dilemma of specificity If a mission statement is broad and unspecific, it can appear relevant to large groups of stakeholders, but it risks becoming redundant A more specific slogan can speak directly to selected audiences but also risks linking the think tank to a specific mission, which may become obsolete as the policy agenda changes Under the impression of competitive pressures from other think tanks, consultancies, and lobby groups, think tanks need to be careful in considering the specificity of mission statements in order to create a clear perception of what they work for Second, an important focus point concerns the uniqueness of what different think tanks In a more competitive policy environment, think tanks are under pressure to show their relative advantages compared to other think tanks The areas in which think tanks hold advantages may reside in the ability to create panels and platforms to facilitate interaction and network building between other actors This is, for example, the case when policy think tanks such as the CEPS conducts task forces in relation to important topics that are on the agenda of the EU institutions and invites insiders such as Commission officials to interact with outside members of CEPS including corporations and NGOs However, if other actors have already employed such initiatives, think tanks need to innovate their practices to compete in the market Third and relatedly, think tanks need to define their key audiences Whereas more consensually oriented think tanks are likely to speak to broader audiences, advocacy think tanks with more adversarial mission statements are likely have more specialized interests and thus choose to reach out to a narrower spectrum of stakeholders The latter strategy holds the advantage of an increased likelihood of arriving at an internal consensus, but the strategy also runs the risk of being seen by outsiders as an advocacy coalition, which does not represent the general interest Fourth, think tanks need to cope with the challenge of attracting funding Fundraising relates to the general availability of resources from stakeholders, but it also depends on whether think tanks are able to reach out and speak directly to their audiences and convince them that their mission and activities are worth investing in Dilemmas include whether to accept public as well as private funding and how to avoid being dictated by the demands related to short-term project funding Concerning the leadership of EU think tanks, strong internal governance might be critical to achieve the ultimate goal of driving policy development As donors are becoming increasingly aware of think tank’s practices, organizations must reassess 450 J D Kelstrup and D Dialer how best to strengthen their management and maximize resources to remain a leading player in a highly competitive arena in order to attract funding (Stryk 2015) Finally, think tanks are encouraged to establish a planning cycle of think tanks with a focus on what they to achieve their goals (Selee 2013, 87) Many think tanks at the EU level have set up planning schemes with governance arrangements consisting of an advisory board with a mix of senior representatives and an academic council with affiliated experts These boards provide input to the mission of the think tank and respond to annual reports, which document the think tank’s overall performance in terms of sustaining its economy, activities, and impact on policymaking and to broader audiences Yet, planning cycles have a tendency to become institutionalized and less dynamic over time It is therefore interesting to explore the extent to which think tanks are able to change and rethink their planning and internal governance in response to new challenges Methods and Analytical Framework This section selects what EU think tanks to focus on and establishes a framework for studying their strategies This prepares an analysis of how two think tanks respond to the five strategic questions presented in the above In selecting think tanks, it is necessary to be aware that the policy areas which concern think tanks matter Whereas some policy processes are focused mainly at the EU level and have their center of gravity in EU decision-making, others, such as foreign or development policy, are more focused on member state level (Abelson 2014) In an ideal world, the strategies of the entire population of EU think tanks would serve as the empirical basis for this chapter Due to the interest in studying the presentation and considerations underpinning think tank strategies in depth, the chapter focuses on only two Brussels-based think tanks: • The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)3 established in 1983 is one of the oldest multi-issue EU think tank Governed by a board including 13 members, CEPS is managed by an executive committee (four members) under the leadership of one director CEPS team comprises approximately 60 researchers and 18 support staff as well as an extensive network of partner institutes • The European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) was founded in 19864 and is a single-issue “think and tank” based in Maastricht (headquarters) and Brussels It focuses on international cooperation and development policy in Europe and Africa ECDPM is one of the worldwide leading development-focused think tanks The more than 70 staff members from over www.ceps.eu www.ecdpm.org 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 451 25 countries are conducting analysis and disseminating policy relevant information mainly related to EU and Africa, Carribea or the Pacific (ACP).5 Analytical Framework Brussels-based EU think tanks are close to decision-makers and can potentially generate higher visibility and influence on the European decision-making process than their national counterparts However, maintaining a Brussels office is quite expensive and given all the new communication technologies, providing policy advice outside of Brussels has become a strategic option for think tanks.6 An alternative strategy to being present in Brussels is joining European or international think tank networks Yet, the day-to-day influence of think tanks on EU decisionmaking depends on their strategic capacity, which involves maintaining visibility in Brussels, forward thinking, and reaching out for new forms of funding such as crowd funding or crowdsourcing In assessing how and why the selected think tanks respond to the strategic questions presented in the above, the analysis combines desktop research of think tank websites with structured interviews with practitioners from the two selected think tanks, CEPS and ECDPM The main questions asked to each think tanks served the purpose of illuminating how practitioners reflect on the importance of strategic questions Selee (2013) offers a set of illustrative US think tank cases that, taken together, show how think tanks might make the most valuable contributions possible to important public issues and how best to spend resources for maximum impact Following his argumentation, think tanks have to focus simultaneously on what they wish to achieve and also on their unique or distinctive competencies This includes pinpointing the crucial aspects of effective strategic thinking and how think tanks can embody their strategy in all their decisions rather than delegate their driving goals to disjointed planning activities It also includes considering what it takes to successfully steer a policyoriented team or organization in the EU’s challenging think tank environment Combining an analysis of think tank websites with two interviews allows the analysis to capture both formal presentations of think tanks to the public on the website and reflections from practitioners in management positions over the motivations and considerations underlying the presentation of the think tank The African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP) is an organization created by the Georgetown Agreement in 1975 It is composed of 79 African, Caribbean, and Pacific states, with all of them save Cuba, signatories to the Cotonou Agreement, also known as the “ACP-EC Partnership Agreement” which binds them to the European Union There are 48 countries from Sub-Saharan Africa, 16 from the Caribbean, and 15 from the Pacific For instance, the Spanish EU foreign policy think tank FRIDE closed its Brussels office in December 2015 citing financial reasons 452 J D Kelstrup and D Dialer Analysis At first glance, CEPS and the ECDPM appear as similar organizations Both organizations are international non-for-profit associations under Belgian law having varied sources of funding, which can be roughly categorized in three pillars: membership fees, co-financing joint activities and EU funding In addition, both think tanks have improved their Internet performance and use of media channels over the past years and are in constant search for strong international partners A more systematic look at the response to each of the five questions presented in the theory section above, however, reveals differences in the ways in which the two think tanks respond to the strategic questions outlined in the above What Does the Organization Want to Achieve? For years CEPS has used the slogan “Thinking ahead for Europe.” This is not a mission statement as such but a commitment to excellence, independence, neutrality, and collaboration on European issues CEPS has a strong in-house research capacity and extensive network of partner institutes being a founding member of “Think Global—Act European” (TGAE) and the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN).7 Generally, it can be described as not only the oldest but also the most renowned, besides EPC, multi-issue EU think tank covering a broad range of heterogeneous policy fields, e.g., economic policy, energy and climate change, foreign policy, financial institutions and markets, food security and development policy, justice and home affairs, politics and institutions, regulatory affairs, and trade policy CEPS is doing seminars, workshops, lunchtime meetings as well as in-house conferences In the span of just years, the CEPS Ideas Lab,8 a platform of exchange and co-creation invented in 2015, has grown to become a main event on the Brussels’ calendar CEPS has entered the EU transparency register in 2011 Yet, as for the last 10 years, CEPS was ranked in the Global Go To Think Tank Index 2016 (GTTI) among the top ten “Think Tanks Worldwide” (climbing up two positions, to 5th place) and was listed among the top ten “Think Tanks in Western Europe.” With a significant leap forward, it also entered the top ten in the “Think tanks with outstanding policy-oriented Research Programs” category and kept its ranking in the top ten of “Best transdisciplinary research think tanks” (McGann 2016, 2017) In 2002, during the constitutional Convention on the Future of Europe, the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) was founded on the initiative of CEPS with the purpose of integrating EU’s national think tank landscape and of applying collectively for EU funds (BEPA 2012, 10) Today EPIN comprises 37 think tanks from 26 countries including member states and candidate countries, coordinated by CEPS https://www.ceps.eu/content/ceps-ideas-lab Accessed August 2017 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 453 The mission of ECDPM is to promote forms of international cooperation that can effectively address key global development challenges and generate inclusive and sustainable solutions The organization uses both “making policies work” and “think and tank” in its branding ECDPM recently launched its 2017–2021 strategy, which defines new priorities that should help to make the Global Sustainable Development Goals9 (2030 Agenda) work Key policy areas of interest include trade, peace and security, African institutions, migration, food security, economic transformation, good governance, and economic diplomacy ECDPM provides research, advice, and practical analysis to policy-makers, advisors, and practitioners in Europe, Africa, and beyond In addition, ECDPM aims to be an independent, nonpartisan facilitator or informal mediator (“honest broker”) and invests in capacity development of governmental and nongovernmental organizations in Africa and the ACP ECDPM has entered the EU transparency register rather late (registration date: 22/01/15) although it was rated by “Transparify”10 highly transparent, revealing not only the names of its donors but also how much each donor gave and the purpose of each donation What Does the Organization Do That Makes a Unique Contribution? It is challenging for CEPS to make a unique contribution because it works 80–90% on European tenders The uniqueness consists of providing state-of-the art policy research and by getting excellent academics on board for this The launch of the CEPS Ideas Lab, bringing together think tanks from across Europe and debating with policy-makers, business, and NGOs in an open forum, was considered unique and has become a success in terms of reputation and participation CEPS boasts its academic excellence and rates academic recognition (quotes by academic peers, etc.) higher than many other think tanks CEPS is often approached when, e.g., companies have a need for EU-related research work ECDPM moves beyond the generation of knowledge of traditional think tanks and aims to actively broker policy change—which is why it merits the title “think and tank” A key strategic choice is also to work in a more political way— focusing on implementation—than other think tanks Rather than being a thematic or sector specialist, ECDPM is bridging policy domains to achieve greater coherence A quality that sets ECDPM most apart from other organizations is its knowledge of European and African institutions, its experience in Africa-Europe relations Resolution 70/1 “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 10 “Transparify” is a platform contributing to debate about think tanks’ role in evidence-based policy-making by assessing their levels of financial transparency 454 J D Kelstrup and D Dialer ECDPM goes beyond the traditional development paradigm, seeking to link development with true international cooperation Who Are the Organization’s Key Audiences and How Does It Reach Them? CEPS mainly concentrates its work around the EU institutions However, EU policies and regulations have a profound impact on international companies This is an asset but also risk compromising CEPS’s funding strategy by limiting its independence through links to corporate members such as Unilever, JPMorgan, Nestlé or Volkswagen Through membership at CEPS, stakeholders get the opportunity to debate directly with senior EU decision-maker, in both formal and informal ways, to get sure that their views are included in the EU policy-making process There are internal debates about key audience, and it depends on each research unit For instance the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) team rate the EU institutions as its key audience, while the Energy and Climate Change team is at least as much focused on companies and CEPS corporate members Targeting seems to be difficult because each research unit has created its own database based on attendance in events, etc CEPS uses a mailing system on top of the general one without "micro targeting" (i.e., there is no inquiry with audience as to which topics they are specifically interested in) In September 2015, CEPS launched the CEPS Academy, out of a recognition that the increasingly complex policy world requires careful study, analysis, and explanation CEPS communicates its expertise through its website, events, and publications Monthly publication downloads fluctuate between 100,000 and 150,000 ECDPM seeks to support the EU institutions and its member states The think tank’s network consists of 49% partners in Europe and 36% in Africa The key partners are divided 31% from civil society, 36% government, 17% intergovernmental, and 6% private sector The think tank helps its partners in Africa to better understand how the EU works Thus ECDPM works together with the AU11 Commission in Addis Ababa and ACP Secretariat in Brussels, EU institutions and EU member states, and a range of African and European think tanks They are spreading their policy prescriptions via newsletters, Facebook, Twitter, and public events and trying to get media coverage 11 The African Union (AU) is consisting of all 55 countries on the African continent It was established on 26 May 2001 and officially launched on July 2002 in South Africa with the aim of replacing the Organization of African Unity (OAU) 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 455 What Resources Does the Organization Need and How Can It Develop Them? CEPS offers interactive platforms to its members by organizing events and creating task forces One strategic challenge lies in the management of the huge variety of issues and the overload of staff members In terms of funding, CEPS relies on EU tendering (almost 50%), corporate funding (membership), national governments (almost 20%), events, foundations, and others The annual event “CEPS Ideas Lab” has become a fundraising tool In addition, CEPS has reached out for more project fundraising and more long-term partnerships As CEPS has been confronted with a tense economic climate (ongoing financial and economic crisis), in which corporate membership budgets have constantly declined the challenge of getting more financial support goes hand in hand with a reform of internal procedures At the moment, there is a lack of promise delivery, e.g., for studies as well as a lack of strategy and management Hence, an improvement in these three areas could increase the financial basis given the good reputation of CEPS’ output ECDPM aims for a diversification of funding, given the risk of the currently high levels of institutional/governmental support ECDPM mentions independence as a core feature of their funding modes This enables them to act flexible and nonpartisan The “think and tank” is mainly depending on institutional funding (70%) ECDPM considers it a strategic priority to mobilize adequate financial resources It is considered a success to have maintained institutional funding levels from longstanding network partners, but the management attempts to find new ones within the EU member states ECDPM expects a slight decrease, renationalization, and reduced funding flexibility of official development assistance Therefore, they would like to increase program and project funding and explore funding opportunities through EU delegations, member state representations, and African institutions (e.g., African Development Bank) Joint funding arrangements will get more important as well as strengthening fundraising capacity among staff How Does the Organization Evaluate Impact and Learn from Its Experience? The need to rethink strategy is pertinent in times of growing competition and reduced funding possibilities CEPS has been hesitant to change and specify its broad strategy In part, the breadth and vagueness of the strategy is related to the autonomy of each research unit Sometimes surveys are used (e.g., for events), and the evaluations of tenders are always assessed to ensure future improvements CEPS governance structure has not been innovated for decades The members of the board have changed, whereas it is an objective to get more women on board (since 2016: out of 13) CEPS’ staff and activities have grown tremendously in the past 456 J D Kelstrup and D Dialer 10 years While this seems promising, it produces difficulties in setting priorities and direction ECDPM boasts 30 years of experience whereby evaluation is based on internal and external performance reviews In preparation for the 2017–2021 strategy, ECDPM assessed its performance of the past 5-year period As accompanying measures, the board initiated an independent external evaluation process in 2015 ECDPM mentions that the entry of Ewald Wermuth as a new director in 2015 has led to change in the composition of the board It consists of a majority of African stakeholders now A Learning and Quality Support UNIT was created in late 2015 Moreover, the management was reinforced with two heads of program and meets regularly instead of monthly ECDPM says that to accomplish the new Global Goals for Sustainable Development by 2030, partnerships (Goal 17) will be more crucial than ever before The think tank needs to strengthen its teamwork with private sector actors on the ground and broaden our engagement with relevant civil society actors at the regional level ECDPM also aims to improve efficiency and management of financial risks (ongoing global economic crisis) Conclusions Think tanks operate in an evolving European and global environment characterised by increasing complexity, ever-more stakeholders, and shifting interest, dynamics, and power patterns In the midst of this dynamic environment, both examined think tanks have tried to cope with future challenges The main task of the chapter was to explore the strategies, which two think tanks use to exert influence in the policy community around and within the EU institutions including how they have adjusted their strategies (or not) in response to competition from other think tanks The analysis has shown that CEPS and the ECDPM consider strategic advice in developing mission statements, addressing key audiences, in raising funding, and in evaluating their impact Both CEPS and the ECDPM have the capacity to play a vital role in informing the public, acting as a bridge between civil society and politics in Europe and beyond Both think tanks recognize that the growth in number of EU think tanks after 1990s as well as the ongoing economic crisis increased the competition for funding, public awareness and media coverage, and political attention within the EU institutions CEPS, however, has been reluctant to make large changes to its strategies, which have been changed only gradually and often tentatively and piecemeal ECDPM has introduced a strategy paper 2017–2021 which shows the awareness for strategy on the management level The reflections from the two think tank practitioners presented in the analysis complicate the idea of one-sizefits-all strategic guidelines for think tanks The decentralize organization of CEPS, for example, introduces considerable variation in the audiences and practices of different research units Something that the advice directed to a managers of think tanks presented by Selee (2013) does not consider in-depth For ECDPM the balancing between European and African partners introduces a multicentered 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 457 audience, something which should lead scholars to develop strategic advice for think tanks operating across different political systems in the future Arguably, the next step in moving strategic advice for think tanks ahead is to give more systematic attention to both context and networks In the case of the EU, the focus on two individual think tanks provided in the above misses a trend toward collaboration and pooling of resources as well as expertise There is much “synergism”, networking and intellectual exchange between senior staff members of competing Brussels-based think tanks.12 Since 2007, Notre Europe—Jacques Delors Institute,13 the leading Brussels-based French EU think tank has coordinated a project, entitled “Think Global—Act European” (TGAE) bringing together 16 think tanks and over 40 experts to examine EU trio presidencies and EU’s external action More numerous still are the many short-term partnerships among EU think tanks through jointly organized and sponsored conferences, symposia, and publications For example, in January 2017 for the seventh consecutive year, the Brussels Think Tank Dialogue (TTD) took place Ten leading EU think tanks including CEPS have joined forces to assess the state of the European Union and to develop analysis and recommendations to improve EU policies in the eve of European Elections 2019 These collective efforts provide another layer to the study of think tank and their strategies in EU public policy References Abelson, D E (2014) Old world, new world: The evolution and influence of foreign affairs thinktanks International Affairs, 90, 125–142 BEPA (2012) European think tanks and the EU Berlaymont Papers, 2, Brussels: EU Commission Berling, T V (2012) Bourdieu, international relations, and European security Theory and Society, 41, 451–478 Bertelsmann Foundation (2016) Transformation index BTI Retrieved July 7, 2017, from https:// www.bti-project.org/de/index/ Boucher, S., & Royo, M (2012) Les think tanks Cerveaux de la guerre des idées Paris: Éditions du Félin Callahan, W A (2007) Future imperfect: The European Union’s encounter with China (and the United States) Journal of Strategic Studies, 30(4–5), 777–807 Campbell, J L., & Pedersen, O K (2014) The national origins of policy ideas: Knowledge regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark Princeton: Princeton University Press Coen, D., & Richardson, J (Eds.) (2009) Lobbying the European Union Institutions, actors and issues Oxford: Oxford University Press Hence, the Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA) was the first transnational think tank network to be founded in 1974 Ever since TEPSA has steadily increased currently consisting of 33 members located in 29 countries With its decentralized approach, TEPSA exemplifies the “bottom-up” approach to European governance (BEPA 2012, 10) 13 www.notre-europe.eu 12 458 J D Kelstrup and D Dialer Dialer, D., & Füricht-Fiegl, G (2014a) EU think tanks in the back seat? Perspectives for the 21 century Challenging Organisations and Society, 3(2), 561–572 Dialer, D., & Füricht-Fiegl, G (2014b) EU think tanks: Brücke zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit? In D Dialer & M Richter (Eds.), Lobbying in der Europäischen Union Zwischen Professionalisierung und Regulierung (pp 307–318) Wiesbanden: Springer Dressler, W., Sicakkan, H G., Fuga, A., Mitroi, V., & Terrazzoni, L (2012) The French republican model, the European diversity perspective and the European public sphere Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 51(3), 418–447 ECFR (2017) European Foreign Policy Scorecard 2016 Retrieved July 7, 2017, from http:// www.ecfr.eu/scorecard/2016 EU Transparency Register (2018) Transparency and the EU Retrieved June 26, 2018, from http:// ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do Garcia-Blanco, I., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K (2013) Remote, elitist, or non-existent?: The European public sphere in the debates of British political elites Javnost-the Public, 20(3), 23–38 Gueguen, D (2008) European lobbying London: John Harper Howorth, J (2004) Discourse, ideas, and epistemic communities in European security and defence policy West European Politics, 27(2), 211–234 Kelstrup, J D (2016) The politics of think tanks in Europe Routledge Research in Comparative Politics Abingdon: Routledge Kelstrup, J D (2018) Think tanks in EU public policies In H Heinelt & S Münch (Eds.), Handbook of European policies: Interpretive approaches to the EU Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Klinke, I (2012) Postmodern geopolitics? The European Union eyes Russia Europe-Asia Studies, 64, 929–947 Lahrant, M., & Boucher, S (2004) Think tanks in Europe and US: Converging or diverging? Paris: Notre Europe McGann, J G (2016) 2015 Global Go-To Think Tank Index Report, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), University of Philadelphia McGann, J G (2017) 2016 Global Go-To Think Tank Index Report, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), University of Philadelphia Selee, A (2013) What Should Think Tanks Do? A Strategic Guide to Policy Impact Stanford, CA: Stanford Briefs Sherrington, P (2000) Shaping the policy agenda: Think tank activity in the European Union Global Society, 14(2), 173–189 Smith, K E., Fooks, G., Gilmore, A B., Collin, J., & Weishaar, H (2015) Corporate coalitions and policy making in the European Union: How and why British American tobacco promoted better regulation Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, 40(2), 325–372 https://doi.org/10.1215/ 03616878-2882231 Stryk, R (2015) Improving think tank management: Practical guidance for think tanks In Research advocacy NGOs and their funders Washington: Results for Development Institute Svallfors, S (2016) Out of the golden cage: PR and the career opportunities of policy professionals Politics & Policy, 44(1), 56–73 Ullrich, H (2004) European Union think tanks: Generating ideas, analysis and debate In D Stone & A Denham (Eds.), Think tank traditions Policy research and the politics of ideas (pp 51–68) Manchester: Manchester University Press 33 EU Think Tank Lobbying Strategies: Between Theoretical Advice and Practice 459 Jesper Dahl Kelstrup is Associate Professor at the Department of Social Sciences and Business at Roskilde University His research focuses on European public policy and puts special emphasis on the origins of and comparative variation in think tanks landscapes Prior to his research career, he worked as a civil servant at the local as well as the national level of government in Denmark Doris Dialer is Adjunct Professor at the University of Innsbruck’s Department of Political Science and Associate Professor at the Department of Knowledge and Communication Management at the Danube University and at the Jean Monnet Chair on European integration and ethics (MCI Innsbruck) Doris is Brussels-based and has been working as political advisor in the EU Parliament for more than 12 years Much of her research focuses on the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee, EU Lobbying, and EU Development Policy (post-Cotonou) She is co-editor of the book series IUP/NOMOS and the IFIR working papers .. .Lobbying in the European Union Doris Dialer • Margarethe Richter Editors Lobbying in the European Union Strategies, Dynamics and Trends Editors Doris Dialer Department... presence in Brussels and the European capitals Comparative studies of lobbying in areas of internal market and lobbying in EU foreign policy reveal that the institutional setting is quite different The. .. for instance, hired a total of 23 individuals from the EU institutions since 2009.11 Successfully In uencing EU Policy-Making Apart from strategy, understanding, measuring, and evaluating lobbying