Analysis of responses to the Open Public Consultation on ... · Project reference / title J908 SecGen Transparency Register Report status Final Report Main Authors Dr Peter Floyd,

Analysis of responses to theOpen Public Consultation

on the proposal for a mandatoryTransparency Register

(Specific Contract SG/B4/R1-2015/1implementing Framework Contract

ENTR/172/PP/2012-FC Lot 3)

Final Report

prepared for

Secretariat-General

July 2016

Analysis of responses to the Open Public Consultationon the proposal for a mandatory

Transparency Register

(Specific Contract SG/B4/R1-2015/1 implementingFramework Contract ENTR/172/PP/2012-FC Lot 3)

July 2016

Final Report

Quality Assurance

Project reference / title J908 SecGen Transparency Register

Report status Final Report

Main Authors

Dr Peter Floyd, RPA

Teresa Fenn, RPA

Shaun da Costa, RPA

Hannah Collins, RPA

Approved for issue by Dr Peter Floyd, RPA

Date of issue 28 July 2016

Document Change Record

Report Version Date Change details

Draft Final As submitted 27 June 2016

Final As submitted 7 July 2016Report revised following feedbackon the Draft Final Report

Final V2 28 July 2016Further minor revisions to improvepresentation

Disclaimer

The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of theEuropean Commission as an institution. The European Commission does not

guarantee the complete accuracy of the assessment presented herein. Neitherthe Commission nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use

which might be made of the following information. Responsibility for theinformation and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors.

Recommended citation

RPA (2016): Analysis of responses to the Open Public Consultation on theproposal for a mandatory Transparency Register, Final Report, report for

Secretariat-General, European Commission, July 2016, Loddon, Norfolk, UK

Analysis of responses to the Open Public Consultation on the proposal for a mandatory Transparency RegisterRPA | i

Executive Summary

The Commission held an open public consultation on a proposal for a mandatory TransparencyRegister covering the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the EuropeanCommission from 1 March 2016 to 1 June 2016.

The objectives of the open public consultation were twofold:

(1) to gather views on the functioning of the current Transparency Register; and(2) to receive input for the design of the future mandatory regime of registration announced in

President Juncker's Political Guidelines1.

With 975 valid responses from individuals and 783 valid responses from organisations (including 620from ‘registered’ organisations) and responses from all EU-28 Member States as well as from non-EUcountries, the consultation is considered to have been a success in reaching interested stakeholders.

Within these 1758 responses, there were some co-ordinated campaigns. The larger campaigns werefrom sub-national authorities in Austria and Germany and from individuals and organisationssupporting the ALTER-EU campaign. For the Austrian and German sub-national authorities, theoverarching theme is that local and regional authorities act on behalf of, and are directlyaccountable to, the people they represent. As such, they (and their associations) should be excludedfrom the Transparency Register. On the other hand, the ALTER-EU campaign considers that theTransparency Register needs to be expanded and strengthened.

Once the 106 campaign responses had been carefully considered, attention was focused on theremaining 1652 responses.

There was widespread agreement across all respondents that ethical and transparent lobbying helpspolicy development and that the Register represents a useful tool for regulating lobbying. Althoughrespondents from registered and unregistered organisations generally considered that Europeaninstitutions as public institutions are ‘relatively transparent’, this view was not shared by allindividuals.

There was widespread support for the current definition of activities covered by the Register.However, there was a sharp divergence between individuals, most of whom wanted to broaden thescope of the Register, and unregistered organisations, most of whom wanted to exclude particulartypes of organisations. Responses from registered organisations were between these two extremes.

The current (voluntary) Register represents an online database of interest representatives.Registered organisations were generally most positive about the website while individuals were leastpositive. The highest rated aspects were the website’s ‘design and structure’ and ‘ease of searchfunction’. The two lowest rated aspects related to ‘accessibility’ and ‘access via mobile phones’although most respondents (over 50% in each stakeholder group) offered ‘no opinion’ on theseaspects.

More detailed questions addressed various operational aspects of the Register and these wereanswered, mainly, by registered organisations. Registered organisations did not generally encounterany difficulties with the categorisation of organisations by section and sub-section on the Register.However, a substantial portion of unregistered organisations claimed to have encountereddifficulties. Various suggestions were provided to rationalise and refine some of the categorisations.

1http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/president-junckers-political-guidelines_en

Analysis of responses to the Open Public Consultation on the proposal for a mandatory Transparency RegisterRPA | ii

In general terms, there was broad satisfaction with the existing situation relating to data disclosureand quality and the variation in responses was similar across the different stakeholder groups.However, further examination indicated that, although most registered organisations are contentwith the status quo, there are views that too little information is being requested particularlyamongst NGOs whilst at the other end, there are many who think that too much information is beingrequested particularly amongst business actors, trade associations and sub-national authorities.Furthermore, some respondents were very critical of the data quality.

In any event, there were calls for more guidance to assist registrants to provide the right informationas well as extra checks (manual or automatic) to improve the quality of the data being entered ontothe Register. It was considered that such measures would reduce inadvertent mistakes. There werealso calls for varying levels of information to be provided depending upon the nature and extent ofthe organisation’s lobbying activities. Some respondents acknowledged that further resources forthe Register’s secretariat would be required to better monitor the Register content.

While there is general support for the existing code of conduct and procedure for dealing with alertsand complaints, there is strong support for publishing names of suspended organisations(particularly amongst individual respondents). Further analysis of the results for registeredorganisations indicated that there was some opposition to such publication amongst all sections ofthe Register with least opposition from NGOs.

Respondents were asked about the ease of using the Register website. Although most registeredorganisations indicated that the processes were straightforward, more than a third thought theywere ‘satisfactory but can be improved’. Similar figures emerged from the other main stakeholdergroups.

The European Parliament and the European Commission currently offer certain practical advantages(incentives) linked to being on the Register. In relation to the European Parliament, respondentsidentified the most important advantage of registration to be associated with the opportunity togain access to Parliament buildings.

In relation to the Commission, respondents identified the most important advantage of registrationto be associated with the opportunity to hold meetings with Commissioners, Cabinet members andDirectors-General. The second most important advantage was seen as the ability to be appointed toexpert groups.

For the future, there was general support for further interactions between the EU institutions andinterest groups to be conditional upon prior registration and strong support for the Commission'sview that the Council of the EU should participate in the new Interinstitutional Agreement on amandatory register.

Analysis of responses to the Open Public Consultation on the proposal for a mandatory Transparency RegisterRPA | iii

Table of contents

Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

2 Number and Type of Responses Received.............................................................................. 2

2.1 Reponses received ..........................................................................................................................2

2.2 Responses from individuals ............................................................................................................3

2.3 Responses from organisations........................................................................................................3

2.4 Responses by language ...................................................................................................................4

3 Methodology of the Study .................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................6

3.2 Step 1: Obtain raw data .................................................................................................................6

3.3 Step 2: Data cleaning .....................................................................................................................6

3.4 Step 3: Identify and segregate major campaigns...........................................................................9

3.5 Step 4: Analysis of closed questions ............................................................................................10

3.6 Step 5: Analysis of open questions ..............................................................................................11

3.7 Step 6: Reporting ..........................................................................................................................13

4 Campaigns.......................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................14

4.2 Campaigns 1 and 2........................................................................................................................14

4.3 Campaign 3 – Part A questions .....................................................................................................16

4.4 Campaign 3 – Part B questions .....................................................................................................18

5 Analysis of Part A Questions ............................................................................................... 21

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................21

5.2 Transparency and the EU (Qns 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1c, 1.2)....................................................................21

5.3 Scope of the Register (Qns 2.1, 2.2)..............................................................................................40

5.4 Register website (Qns 3.1) ............................................................................................................49

5.5 Additional comments (Qn 4 and additional files) .........................................................................53

Analysis of responses to the Open Public Consultation on the proposal for a mandatory Transparency RegisterRPA | iv

6 Analysis of Part B Questions................................................................................................ 59

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................59

6.2 Structure of the Register (Qn B1.1)...............................................................................................59

6.3 Data disclosure and quality (Qns B2.1, B2.2, B2.3, B2.4)..............................................................63

6.4 Code of conduct and procedure for alerts and complaints (Qns B3.1, B3.2a, B3.2b) ..................75

6.5 Register website – registration and updating (Qn B4.1)...............................................................83

6.6 Current advantages linked to registration (Qn B5.1)....................................................................86

6.7 Features of a future mandatory system (Qns B6.1, B6.2) ............................................................90

6.8 Looking beyond Brussels (Qn B7.1)...............................................................................................97

6.9 Additional comments..................................................................................................................101

Annex 1: The Questionnaire

Annex 2: Summary of Campaign Responses

Analysis of responses to the OPC on the proposal for a mandatory Transparency RegisterRPA | 1

1 Introduction

The Commission held an open public consultation on a proposal for a mandatory TransparencyRegister covering the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the EuropeanCommission from 1 March 2016 to 1 June 2016.2

Following a series of questions to characterise the respondent, this open public consultationcomprised two parts: Part A General and Part B Specific. Part A was mandatory for all respondentsand contained seven questions while Part B was optional and contained 13 questions. All questionsinvolved both a ‘closed’ element (answered by ticking a box) and, optionally, an ‘open’ text box toprovide further comments3. The full questionnaire is presented in Annex 1.

The objectives of the open public consultation were twofold:

(1) to gather views on the functioning of the current Transparency Register; and(2) to receive input for the design of the future mandatory regime of registration announced in

President Juncker's Political Guidelines4.

The Commission therefore essentially aimed to assess and understand what has worked well so far,and what can be improved and how, in order to ensure that the Register fulfils its full potential as ameaningful tool governing relations between the EU institutions and interest representatives.

The Commission contracted Risk & Policy Analysts to provide support for this open publicconsultation exercise with particular regard to the analysis of the results.

2Accessible via the dedicated webpage:http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/civil_society/public_consultation_en.htm as well as via the portal YourVoice in Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm

3Each open text box had a 3,000 character limit which is equivalent to about 500 words or a page of A4typed text.

4http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/president-junckers-political-guidelines_en


2 Number and Type of Responses Received

2.1 Reponses received

During the course of this open public consultation (OPC), the Commission monitored the rate ofresponses by main stakeholder group (citizens, organisations registered on the TransparencyRegister and organisations not registered on the Transparency Register5) and the results aresummarised in Figure 2-1. It is apparent that there were two phases in the responses with a largenumber of responses being received in the first few weeks with a second burst of activity starting inWeek 9 (week commencing 2 May 2016). This was probably due to the publicity for and interest in apublic debate event organised by the European Parliament and the Commission which was held inBrussels on 2 May 20166.

Figure 2-1: Numbers of responses received by week (from 1 March to 1 June 2016)

With over 1,750 responses received from across the EU-28 and a few from further afield, theconsultation is considered to have been a success in reaching interested stakeholders7.

5In this report, these are referred to as ‘registered’ and ‘unregistered’ organisations respectively

6http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/staticPage/displayStaticPage.do?reference=NEWS&locale=en

7Of note is that many OPCs run by the Commission typically attract a few hundred responses so this OPC hasattracted particular interest amongst stakeholders

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

ses

Week

TOTAL Citizens

Registered organisations Unregistered organisations


2.2 Responses from individuals

Individual respondents were asked to nominate their country of residence. 961 responses werereceived from across all EU-28 Member States as well as a further 14 from other countries.

Table 2-1: Responses from individuals by country of residence

Country Number* % Total

Austria 33 3.4%

Belgium 92 9.4%

Bulgaria 8 0.8%

Croatia 3 0.3%

Cyprus 5 0.5%

Czech Republic 3 0.3%

Denmark 17 1.7%

Estonia 2 0.2%

Finland 5 0.5%

France 128 13.1%

Germany 186 19.1%

Greece 27 2.8%

Hungary 3 0.3%

Ireland 26 2.7%

Italy 84 8.6%

Latvia 3 0.3%

Lithuania 4 0.4%

Luxembourg 6 0.6%

Malta 1 0.1%

Netherlands 76 7.8%

Poland 32 3.3%

Portugal 17 1.7%

Romania 10 1.0%

Slovak Republic 3 0.3%

Slovenia 5 0.5%

Spain 49 5.0%

Sweden 21 2.2%

United Kingdom 112 11.5%

Other country 14 1.4%

Totals 975 100%

* Note that these are the numbers of respondents after a few entries had been removed during data cleaningas described in the next section

2.3 Responses from organisations

For responses from organisations, respondents were asked to nominate where their organisationwas based. 748 responses were received from across all EU-28 Member States (except Lithuaniaand Malta) as well as a further 35 from other countries.


Table 2-2: Responses from organisations by country

Country Number* % Total

Austria 54 5.5%

Belgium 189 19.4%

Bulgaria 2 0.2%

Croatia 6 0.6%

Cyprus 1 0.1%

Czech Republic 7 0.7%

Denmark 14 1.4%

Estonia 2 0.2%

Finland 4 0.4%

France 73 7.5%

Germany 161 16.5%

Greece 4 0.4%

Hungary 2 0.2%

Ireland 7 0.7%

Italy 48 4.9%

Latvia 1 0.1%

Lithuania 0 0.0%

Luxembourg 6 0.6%

Malta 0 0.0%

Netherlands 26 2.7%

Poland 5 0.5%

Portugal 10 1.0%

Romania 14 1.4%

Slovak Republic 3 0.3%

Slovenia 4 0.4%

Spain 54 5.5%

Sweden 8 0.8%

United Kingdom 43 4.4%

Other country 35 3.6%

Totals 783 100.0%


2.4 Responses by language

The questionnaire was offered in all official EU languages. Although 60% of respondents opted forthe English version, respondents used the questionnaires in another 19 languages as listed in Table2-3. It is worth noting that some respondents provided responses to the open text questions in adifferent language from that of the questionnaire.


Table 2-3: Responses by language of questionnaire

Language Number* % Total

English 1067 60.7%

German 321 18.3%

French 163 9.3%

Italian 64 3.6%

Spanish 46 2.6%

Polish 29 1.6%

Dutch 15 0.9%

Portuguese 9 0.5%

Slovenian 7 0.4%

Greek 6 0.3%

Danish 5 0.3%

Finnish 5 0.3%

Romanian 5 0.3%

Bulgarian 4 0.2%

Czech 4 0.2%

Croatian 2 0.1%

Slovak 2 0.1%

Swedish 2 0.1%

Hungarian 1 0.1%

Latvian 1 0.1%

Totals 1758 100.0%



3 Methodology of the Study

3.1 Introduction

The work involved six main steps:

Step 1: Obtain raw data Step 2: Data cleaning Step 3: Identify and segregate major campaigns Step 4: Analysis of closed questions Step 5: Analysis of open questions Step 6: Reporting

3.2 Step 1: Obtain raw data

After the closure of the consultation the Commission provided the consultants with a complete setof responses in a single Excel data file.

3.3 Step 2: Data cleaning

Unique identifiers3.3.1

Every record was given a unique identifier from 5 (the earliest submission) to 1770 (the most recentsubmission) to match the row numbers on the original Excel data file.

Removal of late submissions3.3.2

The creation dates on the records were checked to ensure that all responses were received withinthe prescribed timeframe. The first two responses were seen to be final testing submissions prior tothe public launch on 1 June 2016 and were therefore removed from further analysis.

Duplicates3.3.3

The next step was to check for multiple identical responses across all data fields (except the uniqueidentifier and creation date). Four duplicates were removed. In each case, there were twosubmissions within several minutes of each other suggesting that the respondent had been unsureas to whether the first submission had been successful.

Further inspection of entries from the same person/organisation was undertaken. Although severalpairs of varying responses from the same email accounts were identified, these could be attributedto colleagues, partners or friends and were therefore retained. In two cases, entries were identicalexcept for the last question relating to whether the response could be published. In these cases, thetwo earlier submissions were deleted.


Summary3.3.4

Overview

The data carried forward for further analysis are summarised in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Summary of responses taken forward

Nature of Respondent

I agree to mycontribution

being published

I do not agree tomy contributionbeing published

Total

An individual in my personal capacity 739 236 975

The representative of an organisationregistered in the Transparency Register

530 90 620

The representative of an organisation notregistered in the Transparency Register

111 52 163

Totals 1380 378 1758

Where the respondent agreed to having their contribution published, it has been published by theCommission with access from the previously mentioned consultation webpage8.

Of those that did not wish to see their responses published, some provided a reason as summarisedin Table 3-2. A listing of the reasons was provided to the Commission.

Table 3-2: Justification provided for requesting that contributions not be published

Nature of RespondentI do not agree tomy contributionbeing published

Justification

provided

% providingjustification fornon-publication

An individual in my personal capacity 236 80 34%


90 19 21%


52 5 10%

Totals 378 104 28%

Individuals

As previously indicated (see Table 2-1), responses were received from 961 individuals resident acrossall EU-28 countries and from a further 14 individuals in other countries. Over 60% of the responseswere received from five countries: Germany (19.1%), France (13.1%), United Kingdom (11.5%),Belgium (9.4%) and Italy (8.6%).

Organisations

In relation to the 783 organisations which responded, they were self-characterised as shown in Table3-3.

8http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/civil_society/public_consultation_en.htm


Table 3-3: Typology of organisations (by Register Section* and whether already registered)

Nature of Organisation

in theTransparency

Register

not in theTransparency

RegisterTotal

Section I: Professional consultancies/law firms/self-employed consultants

66 7 73

Professional consultancies 46 6 52

Law-firms 8 0 8

Self-employed consultants 12 1 13

Section II: In-house lobbyists andtrade/business/professional associations

333 16 349

Companies and groups 85 7 92

Trade and business associations 159 3 162

Trade unions and professional associations 74 5 79

Other organisations 15 1 16

Section III: Non-governmental organisations, platforms,networks, ad-hoc coalitions, temporary structures andother similar organisations

162 19 181

Section IV: Think tanks, research and academicinstitutions

23 3 26

Think tanks and research institutions 13 3 16

Academic institutions 10 0 10

Section V: Organisations representing churches andreligious communities

6 0 6

Section VI: Organisations representing local, regional andmunicipal authorities, other public or mixed entities, etc.

30 118 148

Regional structures 5 11 16

Other sub-national public authorities 4 94 98

Transnational associations and networks of publicregional or other sub-national authorities

9 2 11

Other public or mixed entities, created by lawwhose purpose is to act in the public interest

12 11 23

Totals 620 163 783

* Details of membership of the Transparency Register by section may be found here:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do?redir=false&locale=en

As previously indicated (see Table 2-2), responses were received from 748 organisations across 26 ofthe EU-28 Member States, as well as from a further 35 organisations in other countries – resulting ina total of 783 responses. Nearly 20% of the responses (189) were received from organisationsbased in Belgium. The next countries with the greatest numbers of responses were Germany (161),France (73), Spain (54), Austria (54), Italy (48) and the UK (43).


3.4 Step 3: Identify and segregate major campaigns

Introduction3.4.1

The next step was to identify ‘campaign’ responses in which identical responses are submitted bymultiple respondents as part of a co-ordinated campaign. By inspection of the Excel sheets, it wasimmediately apparent that campaigns were probably present due to similar answers for both closedand open questions within particular stakeholder groups.

Further work on identifying the campaigns involved three methods:

web searches to identify any on-line (including social media) campaigns; use of STATA to identify duplicate responses to the substantive (closed) questions (i.e. not

including the ‘respondent profile questions’); and identification of repeated comments in the ‘open’ (comment) questions (by inspection and/or

use of NVivo software).

Presence of campaigns3.4.2

Prior to closure of the consultation, RPA undertook some online research to determine whetherthere were active campaigns to promote particular sets of responses. Of course, it was noted thatthe Commission had also actively promoted participation in the consultation including the publicdebate event already referred to (see Section 2.1 above).

The most noticeable campaign was organised by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and EthicsRegulation (ALTER-EU) which provided suggested responses to both closed and open questions9.

A number of other organisations and individuals publicised their responses and encouraged othersto participate including Transport & Environment10, European Movement International11, DemocracyInternational12 and The Risk Monger13.

Closed questions3.4.3

Analysis of closed questions in the cleaned data set using STATA revealed two ‘campaigns’, one with17 responses and one with 14 responses14. In this context, campaigns are defined as those

9http://alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/documents/ALTER-EU%20EUTR%20TEMPLATE%20FINAL_0.pdf

10https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/public-consultation-proposal-mandatory-transparency-register

11http://europeanmovement.eu/european-movement-position-on-the-transparency-register/

12Note that this NGO is different from Transparency International but also supports the Alter-EU campaign,see: https://www.democracy-international.org/eu-transparency

13http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2016/04/03/the-risk-mongers-submission-to-the-eu-transparency-register-consultation/

14This was done across both Part A responses and all (i.e. Part A and Part B) responses.


producing 10 or more identical sets of responses across the substantive questions. For over 1750responses, this represents a campaign threshold of 0.6% of responses.

The identified campaigns both involved local authorities from Austria and Germany which respondedto Part A of the questionnaire. Further examination revealed duplicate entries in many of the opencomments from a further 26 local authorities from Austria and Germany which also had very similaranswers to the closed questions.

In total there were 32 responses from Campaign 1 (involving 28 German and 4 Austrian localauthorities) and 25 responses from Campaign 2 (involving a further 25 Austrian local authorities).

The responses to both campaigns are summarised in Annex 2A. As can be seen from the results, thepositions of both campaigns support the intentions of the Transparency Register but there are areasrequiring refinement – particularly in relation to what kinds of organisations should or should not beincluded.

Open questions3.4.4

Taking some key phrases from the suggested ALTER-EU responses (as well as some more generalsearches on NVivo) allowed 49 respondents (37 individuals and 12 organisations) to open questionsto be directly linked to this campaign. It is, however, highly likely that more responses (particularlyamongst individuals) were influenced by this campaign. Key phrases looked for were:

Qn 1.1a ….lobbying is more than just the lobby register….

Qn 1.1b Stopping the privileged access by business interests…

Qn 2.2 There is no rationale for their exclusion…

Qn 4 Further important changes…

Qn 4 Lobby rules should apply also to the European Council

Of the 49 respondents to Part A, 11 organisations and one individual proceeded to Part B.

Sample responses are presented in Annex 2A (Part A) and Annex 2B (Part B). As might be expected,the ALTER-EU campaign is seeking a stronger Transparency Register.

In summary, these 106 responses were segregated from the main data set and will be reported onseparately. The remaining 1652 responses will be carried forward for further analysis.

3.5 Step 4: Analysis of closed questions

For the closed questions we used basic analysis to provide summary data for all closed questionsagainst different types of stakeholder:

individuals vs registered organisations (i.e. organisations on the Transparency Register) vsunregistered organisations (i.e. organisations not on the Transparency Register); and

type of organisation (as classified by the six main sections on the existing register).


3.6 Step 5: Analysis of open questions

Sample size3.6.1

The table below summarises the numbers of open text responses by question and respondent aswell as the associated sample size based on the expression √N +2, where N = number of open text

responses to a particular question.

Table 3-4: Summary of samples of text boxes to be read/analysed(1)

Text boxesNature of

respondents

Range in numberof responses per

text box

Range in suggestedsample size

(2)per

text box

Total text boxes(3)

to be read/analysed

Part A – 8 open textboxes

Individuals 172 to 665 15 to 28 156

Organisations 131 to 371 13 to 21 136

Part B – 14 opentext boxes

Individuals 14 to 39 6 to 8 101

Organisations 54 to 159 9 to 15 170

Notes:

(1) Note that these are based on the 1652 responses remaining after segregation of the campaign responses

(2) Sample size based on √N +2, so if there were 144 text box responses to a particular question, N = 144 and √N = 12. As such, the sample size would then 12 + 2 = 14

(3) Actual number of text boxes to read and analysed based on sample sizes for each and every open text box

The total number of text boxes which were read (in the language provided), analysed and recordedwas over 550.

To ensure that a range of informed views were considered, particular attention was given to thoseorganisations which have been particularly active in the debate around lobbying transparency in therecent past as well as representing the views of organisations from different sections of the Register.Such organisations were to be found on the participants list of the joint European Parliament andCommission EU Lobbying Transparency public event held on 2 May 2016 in Brussels. This led to a listof 25 entities, most of which followed the public debate, as listed in Table 3-5 (overleaf).

Of these 25 entities (hereafter referred to as ‘Tier 1 organisations’), 24 provided responses to theonline questionnaire while the 25th entity (a European Ombudsman) provided a separate writtensubmission. By inspection, the Tier 1 organisations provided 10–21 responses (or related commentin the case of the European Ombudsman) to each text box in Part A and 8–14 responses (or relatedcomment in the case of the European Ombudsman) to each text box in Part B. To provide a meansto ensure that the range of informed opinions was captured at an early stage, 75% of the samples(for organisations) were taken from the Tier 1 responses15. The remaining 25% of the sample wastaken from responses from non-Tier 1 organisations.

This sampling led to the generation of a number of themes emerging from the text boxes. Thisprocess was repeated across samples of text box responses from individuals. Although many of theidentified themes were repeated, there were additional themes identified.

15This is referred to as ‘purposive sampling’.


Table 3-5: List of 25 Tier 1 organisations (with details taken from OPC responses)

Name of the organisation: Organisation belongs to the following type:

European Public Affairs Consultancies’ Association(EPACA) Trade and business associations

(corresponding to Section II of the Register*)BUSINESSEUROPE

EuroCommerce A.I.S.B.L.

Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP)

Trade unions and professional associations(corresponding to Section II of the Register)

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe(CCBE)

European Trade Union Organisation (ETUC)

European Centre of Employers and Enterprisesproviding Public Services and Services of GeneralInterest (CEEP)

Non-governmental organisations, platforms,networks, ad-hoc coalitions, temporary structuresand other similar organisations(corresponding to Section III of the Register)

Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs(BEUC)

Civil Society Europe

Transparency International (TI)

Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and EthicsRegulation (ALTER-EU)

AnonymousThink tanks and research institutions(corresponding to Section IV of the Register)

the International Center for Strategic Studies andHuman Rights

Konferenz Europäischer Kirchen Organisations representing churches and religiouscommunities(corresponding to Section V of the Register)

Secretariat of Commission of the Episcopates ofthe European Community (COMECE)

Anonymous Other public or mixed entities, created by lawwhose purpose is to act in the public interest(corresponding to Section VI of the Register)

Bayerische Staatsregierung

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) Other sub-national public authorities(corresponding to Section VI of the Register)Region Hannover

Scottish Local Government PartnershipTransnational associations and networks of publicregional or other sub-national authorities(corresponding to Section VI of the Register)

Council of European Municipalities and Regions(CEMR)

EUROCITIES

European Ombudsman

Other entities outside the scope of the RegisterGreens/EFA group in the European Parliament

EP intergroup on Integrity, Transparency,Corruption and Organised crime (ITCO)

*Organisations on the Register are categorised by Section:

I. Law firms; professional consultancies; self-employed consultantsII. Trade and business associations; trade unions and professional associationsIII. Non-governmental organisations, platforms, networks, ad-hoc coalitions, temporary structures and

other similar organisationsIV. Think tanks and research institutionsV. Organisations representing churches and religious communitiesVI. Other public or mixed entities, created by law whose purpose is to act in the public interest;

transnational associations and networks of public regional or other sub-national authorities


NVivo analysis3.6.2

NVivo was used to check that the sampling process had not missed other key themes. For each ofthe main languages for each text box, we:

undertook a word frequency search to identify the most popular words; selected 25 words of interest (based on our work on the most appropriate approach to analysis);

and explored the context of the words using text search queries.

NVivo can provide a general, high level overview of all responses based on the connections betweenkey words and the frequency of words. This can be visualised in several ways including word cloudsand word trees – and an example related to the ALTER-EU campaign is presented below.

Figure 3-1: Example of a word tree highlighting the ALTER-EU campaign

Comment3.6.3

There is a risk with the sampling that some detailed and, potentially useful, suggestions have beenmissed. While the combination of the sampling approach with the NVivo approach should help toreduce this possibility, there may still be further useful insights to be gleaned from the OPC results.

However, the level of response to this OPC has made it impossible to enable every open-endedresponse to be reviewed in detail within the time and resource constraints for this study.

3.7 Step 6: Reporting

The results of the analysis of the campaigns are presented in Section 3 with analysis of the otherresponses presented in Section 4 for the Part A questions and in Section 5 for the Part B questions.


4 Campaigns

4.1 Overview

There were three main campaigns identified amongst the responses to the consultation. In thiscontext the threshold for a campaign has been set at 10 responses for (near) identical responsesacross all ‘closed’ and/or ‘open’ questions. As will become clear, smaller groups of co-ordinatedresponses from other stakeholders were also seen but these responses have been consideredalongside the non-campaign responses analysed in Sections 5 and 6.

The three main campaigns are summarised in Table 4-1 and are outlined further below.

Table 4-1: Summary of campaign responses

Campaign Nature of respondentsNumber of

responses to Part ANumber of

responses to Part B

1 – German sub-nationalauthorities

Unregistered Organisations (VI*) 32 0

2 – Austrian sub-nationalauthorities

Unregistered Organisations (VI*) 25 0

3 – ALTER-EU

Individuals 37 0

Registered Organisations (III*) 11 11

Unregistered Organisations (III*) 1 0

*Organisations on the Register are categorised by Section:

I. Law firms; professional consultancies; self-employed consultantsII. Trade and business associations; trade unions and professional associationsIII. Non-governmental organisations, platforms, networks, ad-hoc coalitions, temporary structures and other

similar organisationsIV. Think tanks and research institutionsV. Organisations representing churches and religious communitiesVI. Other public or mixed entities, created by law whose purpose is to act in the public interest; transnational

associations and networks of public regional or other sub-national authorities

4.2 Campaigns 1 and 2

Introduction4.2.1

Over 100 sub-national authorities from Austria and Germany provided responses to theconsultation. Within this group, two similar campaigns were identified and the associated 57responses are considered here. It is, of course, recognised that many of the other responses fromthis group will have been influenced by these campaigns.

The overarching theme is that local and regional authorities act on behalf of, and are directlyaccountable to, the people they represent. As such, they (and their associations) should be excludedfrom the scope of the Register.

The responses to individual questions are presented in Annex 2 and the main points are brieflysummarised here.


Transparency and the EU (Qns 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1c, 1.2)4.2.2

Both campaigns agreed that ethical and transparent lobbying helps policy development (Qn 1.1a).Although Campaign 1 (Germany) respondents thought that the Register was somewhat useful forregulating lobbying, Campaign 2 (Austria) respondents thought that the Register was not useful (Qn1.2). Both campaigns agreed that European institutions as public institutions are ‘relativelytransparent’ (Qn 1.1c).

After ‘transparency’, Campaign 1 (Germany) respondents thought that ‘integrity’ was importantwhile Campaign 2 (Austria) respondents thought both ‘integrity’ and ‘equality of access’ wereimportant (Qn 1.1b).

Scope of the Register (Qns 2.1, 2.2)4.2.3

Although Campaign 1 (Germany) respondents ‘partially agreed’ with the definition of what activitiesshould be covered by the Register, Campaign 2 (Austria) respondents ‘disagreed’ (Qn 2.1).

Campaign 1 respondents highlighted the need for a more precise definition but one that shouldexclude, for example, MEP campaign events and information events at the Commission. Campaign 2respondents highlighted the need to focus on those activities where ‘influence’ can be identified.

Both campaigns agreed that the Register should exclude certain types of entities (Qn 2.2) withparticular reference to local and regional authorities and their associations.

Register website (Qns 3.1)4.2.4

Views from both campaigns are summarised below.

Table 4-2: Main views on the Register website (Qn 3.1)

Aspect of website Campaign 1 (Germany) Campaign 2 (Austria)

Design and structure Average Good

Availability of information / documents Average Average

Ease of search function No opinion No opinion

Accessibility (e.g. features for visuallyimpaired persons, ease of reading page)

Good No opinion

Access via mobile devices No opinion No opinion

Submitted documents4.2.5

Six of the Campaign 2 (Austria) respondents submitted additional documents as summarised in thetable below which reiterated their position that local and regional authorities and their associationsshould be excluded from the Register.


Table 4-3: Summary of attached documents from Campaign 2 respondents

Document name Description

Ramsau im Zillertal Declaration

Common European Day (European Affairs Committees of the GermanAssociation of Towns and Municipalities and the Austrian communitynationwide) position on local and regional authorities, 1 page.(4 submissions)

WildschönauGerman Federation of municipal associations: concerns thatMunicipalities and their associations should be excluded, 3 pages(2 submissions)

4.3 Campaign 3 – Part A questions

Introduction4.3.1

The ALTER-EU campaign published a detailed commentary16 on all questions with the suggestionthat: ‘all participants in the consultation will want to complete all questions according to their ownviews and experiences, but hopefully this briefing provides some useful suggestions for input. Thereare also links to further information which you might find useful’.

49 responses could be readily associated with this template comprising responses from 37individuals and 12 non-governmental organisations (11 of which were registered). As for the othercampaigns, it is recognised that other responses will have been influenced by this campaign.

The overarching theme is that the role of the Transparency Register needs to be expanded andstrengthened. The responses to individual questions are presented in Annex 2 and the main pointsare briefly summarised here.

Transparency and the EU (Qns 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1c, 1.2)4.3.2

Campaign 3 respondents agreed (fully or partially) that ethical and transparent lobbying helps policydevelopment (Qn 1.1a). Campaign 3 respondents thought that the Register was ‘somewhat useful’for regulating lobbying (Qn 1.2). Although some respondents considered that European institutionsas public institutions could be seen as ‘relatively transparent’, the majority expressed ‘no opinion’and five individuals considered that they are ‘not transparent’ (Qn 1.1c).

After ‘transparency’, some Campaign 3 respondents thought that ‘integrity’ and/or ‘equality ofaccess’ were important (Qn 1.1b). However, most stressed ‘other’ principles including:

transparent lobbying does not equate to ethical lobbying; privileged/unequal access by business lobbies should be limited; account must be taken of the imbalance between lobbying resources between private and public

interests; public interests must ultimately prevail; lobbying on behalf of oppressive regimes should be prevented; and no ‘gifts’ from lobbyists to officials.

16http://alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/documents/ALTER-EU%20EUTR%20TEMPLATE%20FINAL_0.pdf


Scope of the Register (Qns 2.1, 2.2)4.3.3

Campaign 3 respondents generally ‘fully agreed’ with the definition of what activities should becovered by the Register (Qn 2.1).

Campaign 3 respondents would like the Register extended to cover all actors that have an impact onEU decision-making. As such, many of the current exemptions (churches and religious communities,political parties, Member States' government services, third countries' governments, internationalintergovernmental organisations and their diplomatic missions, regional public authorities and theirrepresentative offices, etc.) should be withdrawn (Qn 2.2).

Register website (Qns 3.1)4.3.4

Views on the Register website from Campaign respondents are summarised below.

Table 4-4: Main views on the Register website from Campaign 3 respondents (Qn 3.1)

Aspect of website Individuals (n=37) Organisations (n=12)

Design and structureAverage (n=18)

Good (n=15)

Average (n=7)

Good (n=2)

Availability of information/documentsAverage (n=20)

Good (n=8)

Average (n=7)

Poor (n=4)

Ease of search functionAverage (n=20)

No opinion (n=7)

Average (n=5)

Poor (n=4)


No opinion (n=26)

Average (n=7)

No opinion (n=5)

Good (n=4)

Access via mobile devicesNo opinion (n=30)

Average (n=7)

No opinion (n=7)

Average (n=3)


One Campaign 3 respondent from a registered organisation attached a document as summarisedbelow.

Table 4-5: Summary of attached documents from a Campaign 3 respondent

Document name Description

Lobbying a risk or an opportunity

Lobbying a risk or opportunity, Lobbying regulation from the Slovak,Polish and Czech perspective. In particular, it outlinesrecommendations for a register of lobbyists, its regulation and sanctionsfor wrong doing, 46 pages.


4.4 Campaign 3 – Part B questions

Introduction4.4.1

The 11 registered organisations which responded as part of Campaign 3 proceeded to answer thePart B questions17.

As for the Part A questions, the recurring theme is that the role of the transparency register needs tobe expanded and strengthened but the responses are tempered by reflections on practicalexperiences of using the Register (which is more the focus of the Part B questions).

Structure of the Register (Qn B1.1)4.4.2

Most of the Campaign 3 respondents have encountered difficulties with the categorisation oforganisations on the Register and call for clearer titles/descriptions.

Data disclosure and quality (Qns B2.1, B2.2, B2.3, B2.4)4.4.3

While the Campaign 3 respondents agree (fully or partially) that it is easy to provide the informationrequired (Qn B2.2) and that there should be no simplification as regards the data disclosurerequirements (Qn B2.3), too little information is asked (Qn B2.1) and the overall data quality in theRegister is poor (Qn 2.4).

Detailed suggestions focus on improving the existing system through improved guidance (to reduceinadvertent mistakes) and improved checking of data (which may require additional staff for theRegister’s secretariat) as well as requesting further detail to be provided on lobbying activities andassociated funding amounts and sources.

Code of conduct and procedure for alerts and complaints (Qns B3.1,4.4.4B3.2a, B3.2b)

The Campaign 3 respondents take a very robust position on alerts and complaints. While they‘partially agree’ that the Code of Conduct is based on a sound set of rules and principles (Qn B3.1),they ‘disagree’ with the view the present procedure for dealing with alerts and complaints isadequate (Qn B3.2a) and think that the names of organisations that are suspended under the alertsand complaints should be made public (Qn B3.2b).

Specific suggestions to improve the Code of Conduct include:

definition of 'inappropriate behaviour' needs to be clarified; should prohibit representation by private firms of regimes in breach of human rights; should prohibit representation by private firms of the tobacco industry; and effective use should be made of sanctions.

17One individual also provided responses to Part B along the lines suggested by the ALTER-EU template andso provide no added information to that provided by the responses from the organisations consideredhere.


Register website – registration and updating (Qn B4.1)4.4.5

Most Campaign 3 respondents thought that the processes for registration and updating on thewebsite were ‘satisfactory but can be improved’. It was suggested that the processes might beenhanced though some additional software to warn of possible errors (for example, by providing asimple logic check on the data being entered).

Current advantages linked to registration (Qn B5.1)4.4.6

The European Parliament and the European Commission currently offer certain practical advantages(incentives) linked to being on the Register.

Respondents were invited to comment which of these advantages were considered important. TheCampaign 3 respondents generally thought that these advantages were very important. Theadvantages were ranked as shown below and, for comparison; the results are compared with thosederived from other registered organisations which responded to this question (as discussed inSection 5.6.1).

Table 4-6: Ranking of the importance of advantages granted to registered organisations based onresponses from Campaign 3 respondents and from other registered organisations

Advantage granted to registered organisations

Campaign 3

(n = 11)

Other registeredorganisations

(n = 484)

In the European Parliament (EP)

Access to Parliament buildings: long-term access passes to the EP’spremises are only issued to individuals representing, or working forregistered organisations

1 1

Committee public hearings: guests invited to speak at a hearingneed to be registered

3 2

Patronage: Parliament does not grant its patronage to relevantorganisations that are not registered

2 3

In the European Commission

Meetings: organisations or self-employed individuals engaged inrelevant activities must be registered in order to hold meetings withCommissioners, Cabinet members and Directors-General

1 1

Expert groups: registration in the Transparency Register is requiredin order for members to be appointed (refers to organisations andindividuals appointed to represent a common interest shared bystakeholders in a particular policy area)

2 2

Public consultations: the Commission sends automatic alerts toregistered entities about consultations in areas of interest indicatedby them; it differentiates between registered and non-registeredentities when publishing the results

4 3

Patronage: Commissioners do not grant their patronage to relevantorganisations that are not registered

3 4

Mailing lists: organisations featuring on any mailing lists set up toalert them about certain Commission activities are asked to register

5 5

*Note that ranking is based on deriving a score based on a simple rating scale: Very important = 2, Somewhatimportant = 1, Not important/ No opinion= 0 multiplied by the number of responses. The advantage with thehighest score was ranked 1, the second highest was ranked 2, etc.


In relation to the European Parliament, the most important advantage (i.e. ranked number 1) wasseen as having access to Parliament buildings.

In relation to the European Commission, the most important advantage was considered to beassociated with the need to be registered in order to hold meetings with Commissioners, Cabinetmembers and Directors-General. The second most important advantage was seen as the ability tobe appointed to expert groups. These views are similar to those from the other registeredorganisations (as considered in detail in Section 6).

While Campaign 3 respondents noted that while such incentives may boost the number ofregistrations, they do not improve the data quality.

Features of a future mandatory system (Qns B6.1, B6.2)4.4.7

Campaigns 3 respondents fully support the suggestion for further interactions between the EUinstitutions and interest groups to be conditional upon prior registration (Qn B6.1) and theCommission's view that the Council of the EU should participate in the new InterinstitutionalAgreement on a mandatory Register (Qn B6.2).

Specific suggestions for the mandatory register include:

registration should be a requirement for access; the EC's policy of not meeting unregistered lobbyists should be extended to cover all

Commission officials involved in EU legislation; Members of the European Parliament should list their interactions with lobby groups; meetings with lobbyists should be published; and officials should not attend events organised by non-registered lobbyists.

Looking beyond Brussels (Qn B7.1)4.4.8

Campaign 3 respondents had no strong view on the Register in comparison to ‘lobby registers’ atMember State level. Nevertheless, many comments were re-iterated from previous questions.

Additional comments4.4.9

Final comments from Campaign 3 respondents stressed that further work on developing themandatory register should be transparent with specific mention of:

all interinstitutional agreement preparatory meetings should be open to the public and web-streamed;

the draft agreement, proposed changes, agendas and minutes should be available online; and all EU institutions should conduct regular reviews of their transparency rules and the way that

they are implemented.


5 Analysis of Part A Questions

5.1 Introduction

Part A of the questionnaire comprised seven questions which addressed four themes as listed below:

Transparency and the EU (Qns 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1c, 1.2) Scope of the Register (Qns 2.1, 2.2) Register website (Qns 3.1) Additional comments (Qn 4 and additional files)

These are considered in turn below.

5.2 Transparency and the EU (Qns 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1c, 1.2)

Overview5.2.1

There was widespread agreement that ethical and transparent lobbying helps policy development.

Figure 5-1: Qn 1.1a: Do you agree that ethical and transparent lobbying helps policy development?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Individual (n=938)

Unregistered (n=105)

Registered (n=609)

Fully agree

Partially agree

Disagree

No opinion


It is often said that achieving appropriate lobbying regulation is not just about transparency, i.e.shedding light on the way in which lobbyists and policy-makers are operating. Respondents wereasked which other principles did they consider important for achieving a sound framework forrelations with interest representatives and the results are summarised below.

Table 5-1: Views on other principles (after transparency) considered important (Qn 1.1b)

Principle

Registeredorganisations

(n = 609)

Unregisteredorganisations

(n = 105)

Individuals

(n=938)

Integrity 83% 75% 71%

Equality of access 76% 65% 78%

Other 22% 31% 26%

No opinion 3% 10% 2%

Note: since more than one answer was possible, columns do not add up to 100%

Although respondents from registered and unregistered organisations generally considered thatEuropean institutions as public institutions are ‘relatively transparent’, this view was not shared byindividuals as shown in the figure below.

Figure 5-2: Qn 1.1c: How transparent are the European institutions as public institutions?

There was also a widely held view that the Register was a useful tool for regulating lobbying.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Individual (n=938)


Registered (n=609)

Highly transparent

Relatively transparent

Not transparent

No opinion


Figure 5-3: Qn 1.2: Do you consider the Transparency Register a useful tool for regulating lobbying?

Views on ethical and transparent lobbying (Qn1.1a)5.2.2

Summary

There were 250 responses from organisations to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 18 of the responses are included in the sample18.

There were 374 responses from individuals to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 21 of the responses are included in the sample.

Comments from organisations

There were 17 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. 13 ofthese responses are included in the sample. Five further comments were reviewed from otherorganisations (to give a total of 18). The table below summarises the key themes that have beenextracted from these responses. The themes have been grouped to combine similar issues, tohighlight positive and negative aspects that have been raised on those issues and to draw insuggested solutions to the negative issues. In all cases, the section(s) providing the comments isgiven to enable a comparison of the responses by different types of organisation.

Table 5-2: Themes in response to Q1.1a; n=18 (By section: I = 0, II = 4, III = 6, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 5, X =2)

Positive comments Negative comments Suggested solutions

Issue By type* Issue By type* Solution By type*

Ethical andtransparent lobbyingare good for policymaking

II (3), III (4 +2 org), V (1),VI (2), X (2)

Ethical and transparentlobbying needs to bedefined

III (1)

18The sample size is derived from the expression √N+2. For N = 250, √N + 2 = 15.8 + 2 = 17.8, taken as 18.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Individual (n=938)

Registered (n=609)

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not useful

No opinion


Table 5-2: Themes in response to Q1.1a; n=18 (By section: I = 0, II = 4, III = 6, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 5, X =2)



Transparency is thefirst-step in ensuringa level playing field indecision-making

III (1)V (1)

Further transparencyrules are needed

III (3) Other EU institutionsshould adopt and applytransparency rules

III (1)

Full minutes or meetingreports should be takenin far more meetings

III (1)

Transparent lobbyingdoes not equate toethical lobbying

III (1 org) Transparencyrequirements shouldextend to all 30,000Commission (and agencystaff)

III (1 org)

Lobbying brings intechnicalexpertise/specialistknowledge

II (1)III (1)

There should be ruleson the composition ofexpert groups

III (1) Checks and balances areneeded to take accountof different interestswithin society

VI (1)

Transparency allowscitizens to holddecision-makers toaccount

III (1) There needs to be aculture of civil dialogueat all levels

III (1) Sound independentscience is fundamental

X (1)

Powerful entrenchedinterests haveunbalanced influence

III (1 + 1org),VI (1)

Regulation of lobbyingmust consider equality ofopportunities of access

III (2)

Interestedrepresentatives need todisclose who financesthem (including indirectfinancing)

III (1) Measures to tackleconflicts of interest arefundamental

X (1)

Public authoritiescannot be equated tolobbying or asstakeholders

VI (2 + 1org)

Public authoritiesshould not be in thesame register as privatenon-democraticallyaccountable bodies

VI (1) The Committee of theRegion (CoR) registershould be used for publicbodies

VI (2)

Key to sections:I. Law firms; professional consultancies; self-employed consultantsII. Trade and business associations; trade unions and professional associationsIII. Non-governmental organisations, platforms, networks, ad-hoc coalitions, temporary structures and other

similar organisationsIV. Think tanks and research institutionsV. Organisations representing churches and religious communitiesVI. Other public or mixed entities, created by law whose purpose is to act in the public interest; transnational

associations and networks of public regional or other sub-national authoritiesX. Tier 1 organisations outside the scope of the Register (with particular reference to: the European

Ombudsman; the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament; and the EP intergroup on Integrity,Transparency, Corruption and Organised crime (ITCO) as listed in Table 2-5)

* In this and subsequent tables, III (1 + 1 org), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section IIIorganisation (1) and one Section III organisation (1 org) from the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents


Table 5-2 shows that there is cross-section support for ethical and transparent lobbying. However, itis identified that this needs to be defined. Three NGOs (section III) also consider that furthertransparency rules are needed. One section III respondent notes that ‘To be a real transparencychampion, the Commission must extend these rules so as to cover all Commission staff’.

There is a recognition that lobbying allows specialist knowledge to be brought into decision-making(one II, one III, one X). One section III respondent notes that further transparency rules are needed,specifically ‘the obligation for Commission officials to meet only registered lobbyists and to recordonline lobby meetings should be extended beyond Commissioners, cabinet members and directors-general to cover all those engaged in policy development’. There are also views (one III, one VI) thatpowerful entrenched interests have unbalanced influence and the regulation of lobbying mustconsider equality of access (two III).

Two Tier 1 respondents (two VI) note that public authorities should not be equated to lobbying asstakeholders nor included in the same register as private non-democratically accountable bodies.One of the additional organisations (one VI) also comments on this theme. The suggested solution isto use the Committee of the Regions register for public bodies (two VI).

Comments from individuals

A total of 21 of the responses are included in the sample. Table 5-3 summarises the key themes thathave been extracted from these responses. As before, the themes have been grouped to combinesimilar issues, to highlight positive and negative aspects that have been raised on those issues and todraw in suggested solutions to the negative issues.

Table 5-3: Themes* in response to Q1.1a; n=21 (by language: DE=1, EN=16, FR=2 , IT=1, NL=1)


Issue No. Issue No. Solution No.

Full minutes or meetingreports should be taken infar more meetings

2

Lobbying brings intechnical expertise/specialist knowledge

3 Checks and balances areneeded to take account ofdifferent interests withinsociety

4

Powerful entrenchedinterests have unbalancedinfluence

5

Measures to tackleconflicts of interest arefundamental

1

Lobbying is nevertransparent, makes policyworse, is bad

3

Citizens are insufficientlyrepresented

4

Ban large, “bad”, orforeign lobbyists

3 Any organisationinteracting with the EUmust be fully transparent

1

* Note that where themes differ from those identified above for organisations, these are presented in italics.


Table 5-3 shows that some individual respondents understand that lobbying brings in technical andspecialist expertise.

However, respondents’ views demonstrate a clear mistrust of lobbying and a strong concern thatpowerful, large, ‘bad’ lobbyists have too much say and that citizens’ views are underrepresented. Asone respondent noted: ‘lobbying allows for much too large of a voice for those who have money andpower over the voice of the citizens and general public’.

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (368), German (132)and French (68) using the NVivo software. These words were checked against those in the themesmentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words which could suggest different themes.

From the English words, exploration of the word ‘representation’ suggested a slightly differentperspective. Specifically, interest representation is seen as an important part of democratic process(according to several Section II and III organisations) and the context is illustrated in the word treeoverleaf.

From the German, the word ‘Gemeinwohlorientierung‘ (orientation towards the common good)appeared in responses from German local and regional authorities (Section VI organisations) but,when read in context, was found to relate to a theme already identified: public authorities cannotbe equated to lobbying or as stakeholders.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in Italian (22) and Spanish (14) did notreveal any further themes.


Figure 5-4: A word tree illustrating the importance of ‘representation’ in the democratic process


Views on other principles after transparency (Qn1.1b)5.2.3

Summary

There were 259 responses from organisations to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 18 of the responses are included in the sample.



There were 19 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 13 of the responses are included in the sample. A further five responses from other organisationshave also been reviewed. Table 5-4 summarises the key themes that have been extracted fromthese responses. As before, the themes have been grouped to combine similar issues, to highlightpositive and negative aspects that have been raised on those issues and to draw in suggestedsolutions to the negative issues. In all cases, the section(s) providing the comments is given toenable a comparison of the responses by different types of organisation.

Table 5-4: Themes in response to Q1.1b; n=18 (By section: I = 0, II = 4, III = 6, IV = 0, V = 0, VI = 6, X = 2)



Conflicts of interest canundermine policydevelopment

X (1) Integrity of lobbyistsand decision-makers isessential

X (1)

Equality of accessshould be ensuredthrough the wholedecision-making process

II (1)III (3 + 1

org)VI (1 org)

X (2)

The way decisions aretaken is also key

X (1)

Further rules andregulations will furtherlegitimise the work ofstakeholders

II (1) Codes of conduct areneeded within EUinstitutions

III (1) Decision-makers canchoose who they listento, which works as aself-regulatorymechanism

II (1)

Account should betaken of thecompetence andexpertise provided bystakeholders

II (1 org)

Steps are needed tofurther dialogue withcivil society

III (3) Transparency Registercould be used as adirectory to identifyrelevant stakeholders

III (1)

Transparencyrequirements shouldnot be used as barrierto participation

II (1)VI (1)

The EC must promotemore actively civicspace at national level

III (1)


Table 5-4: Themes in response to Q1.1b; n=18 (By section: I = 0, II = 4, III = 6, IV = 0, V = 0, VI = 6, X = 2)



Account must be takenof the imbalancebetween lobbyingresources betweenprivate and publicinterests

III (1 + 2org)

VI (1 + 1org)

Policy makers shoulddifferentiate betweenlobbyists that aremembers ofprofessionalorganisations andthose that are not

II (1)VI (1)

Privileged/unequalaccess by businesslobbies should belimited

III (2) Public interests mustultimately prevail

III (1 +2 org)

Lobbying on behalf ofoppressive regimesshould be prevented

III (1)

Rules allow regionalchambers of commerceand public privatepartnerships to betreated as publicinstitutions

VI (1)

Public bodies aretreated in the same wayas commercial lobbyists(and should not be)

VI (2)

Key to sections:VII. Law firms; professional consultancies; self-employed consultantsVIII. Trade and business associations; trade unions and professional associationsIX. Non-governmental organisations, platforms, networks, ad-hoc coalitions, temporary structures and other

similar organisationsX. Think tanks and research institutionsXI. Organisations representing churches and religious communitiesXII. Other public or mixed entities, created by law whose purpose is to act in the public interest; transnational

associations and networks of public regional or other sub-national authoritiesX. Tier 1 organisations outside the scope of the Register

* III (3 + 1 org), for example, represents the views from three Tier 1 Section III organisations (3) and oneSection III organisation (1 org) from the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Table 5-4 shows that respondents across sections II, III and VI agree that equality of access should beensured through the whole decision-making process (one II, four III, one VI, plus two from otherorganisations: one III, one VI). NGOs (section III) commented on the need for more dialogue withcivil society (three III) and that privileged/unequal access by business lobbies should be limited (twoIII). Trade and business associations (one II) thought that further rules would legitimise the work ofstakeholders. One comment from a section III respondent added ‘Lobbying which occurs in thecontext of generous gifts, hospitality, trips, or promises of future employment is…unscrupulous, as isinappropriate lobbying, such as bullying someone to deliver a specific outcome… lobbying on behalfof repressive regimes would also fall into this category and should be prevented’.

One respondent from section VI noted that the way that decisions are taken is key, adding ‘Thisparticularly applies to the European Commission's expert groups and the various agencies'assessment panels, who have been accused of being overly one-sided and not sufficiently


independent to ensure that the public interest is at the heart of all decision-making’. This fits withresponses from one Tier 1 section III respondents and two organisations (two III) that publicinterests must ultimately prevail.


A total of 21 of the responses are included in the sample. Table 5-5 summarises the key themes thathave been extracted from these responses. The themes have been grouped to combine similarissues, to highlight positive and negative aspects that have been raised on those issues and to drawin suggested solutions to the negative issues.

Table 5-5: Themes in response to Q1.1b; n=21 (By language: DE=6, EN=13, ES=1, FR=1)



Equality of access should beensured through the wholedecision-making process

2

Decision-makers can choosewho they listen to, whichworks as a self-regulatorymechanism

1

Account must be taken of theimbalance between lobbyingresources between private andpublic interests

4

Privileged/unequal access bybusiness lobbies should belimited

3 Public interests mustultimately prevail

5

Public bodies are treated in thesame way as commerciallobbyists (and should not be)

1

No “gifts” from lobbyists toofficials

1

Ban lobbying, it cannot betransparent

3

Sometimes equality of access isnot ideal. (Bankers should haveno say in legislation of theirindustry)

1

Forbid off-the-record meetings 1

Monitor for and penalise non-compliance

1

First VW investigation wasrefused, only media pressureenabled it.

1

Publically state the affiliationsand financing of lobbyists

2

Allow longer to developregulations if this enables allrelevant parties to be involved

1

Record and make public everymeeting between EU andlobbyists

3



Table 5-5 shows many respondents’ concern to maintain equality of access and to find ways ofadjusting to allow for the large imbalance in resources between different organisations, so thatcitizens’ views are heard and the public interest prevails. This was expressed by one respondent:‘My impression is that the proximity between politics and the economy is closer than that betweenthe politics and people. Understandably, since the economy has fewer different opinions and can payfor negotiations. Nevertheless, the opinion of the people must be duly considered, and more valueplaced upon it (translated).’

One point is interesting: allow longer to develop regulations if this enables all relevant parties to beinvolved. The full view is: ‘It may be necessary to allow longer for the processes especially whenregulations may be complex. Regulations should be workable and allow for appropriate lobbyingfrom the right interested parties not just the NGOs with only political motives.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (349), German (121)and French (77) using the NVivo software. These words were checked against those in the themesmentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words which could suggest different themes but nonew words were identified.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in Italian (19) and Spanish (15)revealed one further theme. One individual requested that meetings held with lobbyists should belimited in number.

Views on transparency of the European institutions (Qn 1.1c)5.2.4

Summary


There were 314 responses from individuals to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 20 of the responses are included in the sample


There were 17 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 14 of the responses are included in the sample. A further five responses were added from otherorganisations (referred to as ‘org’ in the table). Table 5-6 summarises the key themes that havebeen extracted from these responses.

Table 5-6: Themes in response to Q1.1c; n=19 (By section: I = 0, II = 5, III = 9, IV = 0, V = 2, VI = 1, X = 2)



The Transparencyregister was a stepforwards inincreasingtransparency

III (1) Loopholes still exist III (1)VI (1)

A legally bindingregister is needed

II (1)III (2)X (1)

A code of conduct isrequired

III (1)


Table 5-6: Themes in response to Q1.1c; n=19 (By section: I = 0, II = 5, III = 9, IV = 0, V = 2, VI = 1, X = 2)



Level of transparencyvaries from oneinstitution to the next

III (2 + 1org)

Transparency rulesshould apply equally toall EU institutions

II (1)III (4)

EU Institutions aretransparent incomparison withMember States

III (1)X (1)

Transparency in theCouncil is on the level ofthe worst performingMember States

II (1)III (2)

Council of Europe is notcovered by transparencyregister

III (1 + 2org)

VI (1)

Transparency in EUinstitutions lags behindbest practice

III (1) EU needs to be atransparency champion

III (1)

EU institutions need toregain visibility, trustand legitimacy

III (1) There should be publicaccess to Councilworking group meetings

III (1)VI (1)

The Access toDocuments Regulationneeds to be reformed

III (1)VI (1)

Trilogues should betransparent

II (1)III (3 + 2

org), VI (1)

All submissionsreceived by the ECshould be made public

III (2)VI (1)

Lack of transparency formeetings with lesssenior Commissionofficials and lobbyists ofprivate sectorcompanies

VI (1) Meetings should beheld on a searchabledatabase

III (1)

EU Ombudsmandecisions should bebinding

III (2)

Speeding up EU-lawmaking has led toinformal decision-making

X (1) All stakeholders shouldbe able to get involvedat all stages ofregulation (fromdrafting to detailedprovisions)

II (1)

Draft texts and draftimpact assessmentsshould be publishedbefore the initiative isfinalised and adopted

II (1)III (1 org)

VI (1)

All public consultationsand all new proposalsshould be publishedimmediately after theiradoption

II (1)III (1)VI (1)

Key (abbreviated) to sections: I: Professional consultancies, etc.; II: In-house lobbyists and associations; III:Non-governmental organisations, etc.; IV: Research and academic institutions; V: Organisations representingchurches etc.; VI: Sub-national authorities and X: Tier 1 organisation outside scope of Register

* III (1 + 2 org), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section III organisation (1) and two SectionIII organisations (2 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents


The Transparency Register is noted (one III) as a step forward in increasing transparency, but onerespondent from section III and one from section VI both note that loopholes still exist. There arealso concerns (two III plus one other organisation, III) that transparency varies from one EUinstitution to the next, with two respondents from Tier 1 (one III, one VI) and two otherorganisations (two III) noting that the Council of Europe is not covered by the Transparency Register.Three respondents (one II, two III) state that the Council is on a level in terms of transparency withthe worst performing Member States. One section III respondent adds that ‘EU institutions often lagbehind what is already done in some member states and also behind international best practice.Particularly in the US and Canada, the rules governing lobbying, access to documents, stakeholdermeetings and the work of Parliament in general lead to far greater transparency. We also see thatseveral member states are currently putting in place mandatory lobby registers or are otherwiseincreasing transparency and the EU needs to make substantial progress in order not to fall furtherbehind’. One other organisation (section III) notes that there is ‘Room for improvement especially inthe timely publication of documents, compliance with even communicated deadlines, the drafting ofimpact assessments or the transparent selection of the cast of expert groups. The same applies to theallocation of resources by the EU Commission’.

Five Tier 1 respondents (one II, four III) plus one other organisation (III) identify that transparencyrules should apply equally to all EU institutions. There are also suggestions for a legally bindingregister (one II, two III, one X) and for a code of conduct (one III). One section III respondent notesthat ‘The scope of application of the Register lacks coherence: while Commissioners, their membersof cabinet and European Commission’s Directors-General must log in all the meetings they attendand organize, no such obligation applies for members of the European Parliament’. One section Xrespondent notes that ‘the institutions should work towards legislation underpinning theTransparency Register, as a real mandatory register should be legally binding on interestrepresentatives, unlike an Interinstitutional Agreement, which is only binding on the institutions thatparticipate in it’.

Five Tier 1 respondents (one II, three III, one VI) and two other organisations (both III) identified thattrilogues need to be made transparent. One section III respondent commented that ‘Legislative"practices" such as delegated acts and trilogue negotiations keep lagging behind in terms oftransparency, being negotiated behind closed doors’. A second section III respondent adds ontrilogues that ‘These informal inter-institutional meetings… have become an established feature ofEU decision-making, but often undermine accountability and transparency of the EU legislativeprocess. Very little information is available to the public because these meetings take place behindclosed doors and only well-resourced and/ or well-connected lobbies have access to triloguedocuments’.

There were also requests for the EU to public draft texts and draft impact assessment before aninitiative is finalised and adopted (one II, one VI from Tier 1 and one III from other organisations),and for all public consultations and new proposals to be published immediately after their adoption(one II, one III, one VI from Tier 1).




Table 5-7: Themes* in response to Q1.1c; n=20 (By language: DE=4, EN=13, FR=2, NL=1)



A legally binding register isneeded

1

Level of transparency variesfrom one institution to the next

2 Transparency rules shouldapply equally to all EUinstitutions

2

Council of Europe is notcovered by transparencyregister

2

There should be public accessto Council working groupmeetings

1

Trilogues should betransparent

1 All submissions received bythe EC should be made public

2

Meetings should be held on asearchable database

3

EU Ombudsman decisionsshould be binding

1

Negotiations like TTIP are donein secret

2

Transparency at present is onlyfor those with the resources togather and assess the data

1 Make more effort/communication to help thepublic to access info onpolicies, lobbies andrepresentatives

6

Little transparency about theuse of public funds

1

Big business/aggressivelobbyists control the rules

2

Meetings with non-registeredlobbyists happen: therefore itisn’t transparent.

1


Regarding the need for greater communication to help the public and smaller organisations obtaininformation, one respondent observes: ‘They don't seem transparent, but that's also because wedon't have any popular pan European news shows/newspapers. The closest thing to the latter are theGuardian and the Economist in my opinion and those are still specifically British and not European. Ithink I'd really like a European news organization like the BBC.’

Another respondent sums up many views: ‘The EU institutions have introduced some importanttransparency measures although transparency varies between them. There is much that could beimproved across the EU institutions to boost transparency. In fact, there should be a legally-bindingregister to all organisations and entities addressing the European institutions, with comprehensivedisclosure requirements, and active monitoring, enforcement and sanction capacities, which coverlobbying in all the EU institutions and executive agencies. All EU institutions should only meet withregistered lobbyists, lists of meetings should be pro-actively published by Commission officials andreports of lobby meetings held by EU officials should be kept and should be releasable under accessto documents. On-line lists of meetings should be held in a centralised, searchable database for eachinstitution. Another aspect is the trilogues which have become an established feature of EU decision-


making, but often undermine accountability and transparency of the EU legislative process. Very littleinformation is available to the public because these meetings take place behind closed doors andonly well-resourced lobbies have access to trilogue documents. The publication of all documentsshould be required and in a timely and systematic manner. Furthermore, there should be publicaccess to meetings, and access to any reports or notes discussed over the course of the process, inline with the procedures for normal Parliament committee meetings. More importantly, all EuropeanOmbudsman decisions on transparency should be binding for EU institutions.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (382), German (110)and French (63) using the NVivo software. These words were checked against those in the themesmentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words which could suggest different themes but nonew words were identified. Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in Italian(11) and Spanish (17) revealed no further themes.

Views on the Transparency Register as a useful tool for regulating5.2.5lobbying (Qn 1.2)

Summary




There were 15 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 13 of the responses are included in the sample. A further five responses have been added fromother organisations (referred to as ‘org’ in the table). Table 5-8 summarises the key themes thathave been extracted from these responses.

Table 5-8: Themes in response to Q1-2; n=18 (By section: I = 0, II = 4, III = 8, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 3, X = 2)



Transparency register isa useful tool

II (2)III (2 org)

V (1)VI (2 + 2

org)X (2)

Transparency registercreates no obligation oftransparency ondecision-makers

X (1) Enforcement/sanctions are neededto achievetransparency

III (3 + 2org)X (1)

Transparency register iscurrently somewhatuseful

II (1)III (1)

Transparency systemdoes not show whatinfluence lobbyists haveon decision-making

X (1)

No provisions to ensureequality of access todecision-makers

X (1) Information aboutmeetings should be onthe transparencywebsite

II (1)


Table 5-8: Themes in response to Q1-2; n=18 (By section: I = 0, II = 4, III = 8, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 3, X = 2)



Lobby register placesonus of transparency onoutside actors

X (1) Onus of transparencyshould be on publicofficials

X (1)

Registrations by thirdparties cannot becoupled with effectivemonitoring

X (1) Meaningful oversightmechanisms areneeded

III (1)

Present register is highlyflawed

III (1) Independent bodyshould be establishedto decide uponviolations

III (1)

The Register containsrequirements that canlead to misperceptions

VI (1 org) Clearer guidelines areneeded

VI (1 org)

Comparabilitybetween stakeholdersis needed

VI (1 org)

Most lobby contactsremain unregistered

X (1) Lobby register shouldbe mandatory

III (4 + 1org)

Unregistered lobbyistsshould not be able tomeet with EU officials

III (1 + 1org)

Data quality on theRegister is poor

III (1)X (1)

Register should becentral hub of lobbytransparency

III (1)

Register must cover alllobbyists

III (1)

Register contains over-bureaucratic provisions

II (1) Balance is neededbetween transparencyand unnecessarybureaucracy

III (1)V (1)

Lack of proactivemeasures to addressimbalance betweencorporate and publicinterest

III (1) Improved registercould lead to proactiveuse

III (1)

Civil society expertise isunderused for hearingsand advice

III (1)

Member States' specificlobbying regulations areinadequate

III (1) The Council of Europeshould join thetransparency register

III (1 + 1org)


* II (1), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section II organisation (1) while VI (1 org)represents the views of a Section VI organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Eleven respondents consider the Transparency Register to be a useful tool (two II, one, V, two VI,two X, plus four other organisations: two III, two VI) or somewhat useful (one II, one III). Sixrespondents (three III, one VI, plus two other organisations: two III) suggest that enforcement and


sanctions are necessary to achieve transparency. A section X respondent adds that ‘EuropeanCommission has consistently argued that there is no legal basis for effective sanctions, raisingquestions about whether or not this type of system will ever achieve the transparency that's requiredto ensure independence, impartiality and equality in access to the decision-making process. It mustbe mentioned, however, that other legal studies have found specific legal bases’. A section IIIrespondent comments that they ‘wish to see a commitment to start negotiating a legally-bindinglobby register in place by 2017’. They believe that this would ‘give the authorities the opportunity tolevy fines or other real sanctions on those who refuse to register. Such legislation could also bestowproper enforcement mechanisms on the authorities so that they can take tough action against thosewho post inaccurate information or who otherwise break the rules’. There are then four section IIITier 1 respondents and one other organisation (also section III) who suggest that the lobby registershould be made mandatory.

Coverage of the Transparency Register is reported as being ‘75% of business related organisationsand 60% of NGOs active in lobbying the EU institutions is registered in the TR. This means that thereis still a big grey zone where the influences on the EU decision making might not be made in a fairand transparent way’ according to one section III respondent. Another section III respondent notesthough that ‘While the register is based on a sound definition of lobbying and now includesinformation on over 9,000 registered organisations, the poor data quality of the register seriouslyreduces its usefulness as a monitoring tool’. They suggest that the Register ‘should be upgraded toinclude other information, such as members of expert groups, organisations’ answers to publicconsultations, and lists of lobby meetings at the Commission, among others’.

Two respondents (one III and one V from Tier 1) note that a balance is needed betweentransparency and unnecessary bureaucracy, adding that ‘While transparency is a must for "decision-makers" who are to be held accountable for the choices made, we believe that some leniency shouldbe left for the technical level. We fear that unnecessary requirements at technical level – if everypolicy officer working for the institutions has to log in work meetings, for instance – will only lead toinefficiency and paralysis in the decision-making process’.

Three additional themes were added based on comments from other organisations. This includes acomment that the Register contains requirements that can lead to misperceptions (section VI). Thisis clarified as because ‘the EU Transparency Register is not the right tool to provide an accurateoverview of the aggregated amount spent in a whole sector for lobbying activities…this may lead tomisinterpretations and undue controversies’. A second section VI respondent calls for clearerguidelines covering the number of persons involved in advocacy, and the calculation of membershipfees.



Table 5-9: Themes in response to Q1-2; n=20 (By language: DE=5, EN=10, FR=2, NL=1, PT=2)



Transparency register is auseful tool

2 Enforcement/ sanctions areneeded to achievetransparency

1


Table 5-9: Themes in response to Q1-2; n=20 (By language: DE=5, EN=10, FR=2, NL=1, PT=2)



Transparency register iscurrently somewhat useful

4

Register may give too muchprior info to officials, betterto update the Register aftervisit.

2 Information about meetingsshould be on thetransparency website

1

Present register is highlyflawed

1

Most lobby contacts remainunregistered

2 Lobby register should bemandatory

6

Unregistered lobbyistsshould not be able to meetwith EU officials

1

Data quality on the Registeris poor

4

Register should beindependently run, by peoplewith the power to clean data

1

NGOs and conflicts of interest(see commentary)

1

Who intervenes if lobbyingbecomes unethical, needssupervision

1

Clearer communication tothe public through the pressand media

1

Ban lobbying 2


Regarding the Register’s data quality, one respondent expands: ‘Looking up […], I find onlyinformation given by the firm itself. 2 people registered! Are you serious? This register needs to berun by an independent organisation with full access to all relevant information and sufficient powerto get the information from the targeted organisations. For example TTIP negotiations are notincluded. What about the EFSA and glyphosate? We know the problems, why are you not changingthe system? Democracy means including people in decision making processes.’

Another respondent19 develops the discussion about NGO corporate models and conflicts ofinterest: ‘The basis of a conflict of interest needs to be broadened. As it is now, the generalinterpretation is that if a person or organisation stands to profit from the results of their involvementin a decision-making process, this entity has a conflict of interest. Profit is translated as financialgain so most NGOs don’t feel that their engagements with their organisations entail a conflict ofinterest (they are non-profits).

19Note this respondent appears several times in the summaries because the responses are detailed andpertinent and they are identifiable by the “Action point” at the end. It is important to stress that adifferent group of respondents was selected at random for each question. However, when there arerelatively few comments and one respondent replies to many questions at length, it is unsurprising thattheir responses will appear several times.


But NGOs sell their access and influence to foundations, trusts and large funders. The more they canenter into a debate and spread their influence, the easier it is to raise funds. Some like […] have acorporate expansion model – to grow the organisation by 10-15% per year via fundraising (whichnow consumes a third of the NGO’s budget). But when NGO’s enter into debates or have theirexperts on panels or working groups, they generate market value among donors and this addedinfluence can be valued in the hundreds of millions of euros. This is similar to companies withfinancial profit motives, but the NGOs do not believe they have a conflict of interest when they bringtheir positions and biases to a privileged position. If industry experts and scientists are to beexcluded from participating in panels, working groups, committees and platforms, under the samemeasures, so too should the NGOs who are not impartial and have attached a value to the influencethey can exert.

Ideally, it should be agreed upon that all actors involved in public debates have interests that they tryto express and all should be allowed to participate (many NGOs receive public money so that theycan participate), and I wish the European Union would be more mature about this. Note that it is onlythe NGOs that holler and moan about industry being involved and work to restrict dialogue and truestakeholder engagement. They even formed an organisation called […] with over 200 civil societymembers trying to stop industry from engaging in public dialogue. It is in their interest, and helpsthem to gain influence by excluding stakeholders they disagree with.

Action point: Either allow all actors to fully engage in the process (regardless of conflicts of interest)or define a conflict of influence that the civil society organisations benefit from and apply the sameexclusionary procedures to NGO members from EU working groups, panels, advisory boards,committees … as that applied to individuals with ties to industry.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (339), German (108)and French (60) using the NVivo software. These words were checked against those in the themesmentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words. Although several new words wereidentified, on further examination of the context, it was seen that the associated themes had alreadybeen identified.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in Italian (15) and Spanish (10)revealed a concern from an individual that the general public is not sufficiently informed abouttransparency measures.


5.3 Scope of the Register (Qns 2.1, 2.2)

Overview5.3.1

There was widespread support for the definition of what activities should be covered by theRegister.

Figure 5-5: Qn 2.1: Activities covered by the Register include lobbying, interest representation andadvocacy. It covers all activities carried out to influence - directly or indirectly - policymaking, policyimplementation and decision-making in the European Parliament and the European Commission, no matterwhere they are carried out or which channel or method of communication is used. This definition isappropriate

The Register does not apply to certain entities, for example, churches and religious communities,political parties, Member States' government services, third countries' governments, internationalintergovernmental organisations and their diplomatic missions. Regional public authorities and theirrepresentative offices do not have to register but can register if they wish to do so. On the otherhand, the Register applies to local, municipal authorities and cities as well as to associations andnetworks created to represent them.

Respondents were asked whether the scope of the Register should be changed to exclude or includeparticular types of organisations. There was a sharp divergence between individuals, most of whomwanted to broaden the scope of the Register and unregistered organisations, most of whom wantedto exclude particular types of organisations. Responses from registered organisations were betweenthe two as illustrated in Figure 5-6 (overleaf).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Individual (n=938)


Registered (n=609)

Fully agree

Partially agree

Disagree

No opinion


Figure 5-6: Qn 2.2: The scope of the Register should be…

However, the desire for exclusion amongst unregistered organisations comes from sub-nationalauthorities (Section VI) as illustrated below.

Figure 5-7: Responses from unregistered organisation by type of organisation to Qn 2.2: The scope of theRegister should be…

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Individual (n=938)

Registered (n=609)


Exclude certain entities

As current

Include certain entities

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

VI: Sub-national authorities (n=61)

IV: Research and academicinstitutions (n=3)

III: Non-governmental organisations,etc (n=18)

II: In-house lobbyists and associations(n=16)

I: Professional consultancies etc (n=7)

Exclude certain entities

As current

Include certain entities

No opinion


Views on the definition of lobbying activities (Qn 2.1)5.3.2

Summary




There were 14 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 11 of the responses are included in the sample. A further four responses have been added fromother organisations (referred to as ‘org’ in the table). Table 5-10 summarises the key themes thathave been extracted from these responses.

Table 5-10: Themes in response to Q2.1; n=15 (By section: I = 0, II = 1, III = 7, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 3, X = 3)



Support for a broaddefinition

II (1)III (3 + 1

org), V (1)VI (1 + 1

org), X (1)

Definition seemsunreasonably extensive

III (1) Activities covered inthe Registry shouldfocus on contacts inwhich decision-makersare actively engaged

III (1)

Such a wide definitionwould result in atremendous workload

III (1) The focus of theRegister should be oninformation on EUdecision-making notjust lobbying

III (1)

Not true to say thatdefinition covers allactivities carried out toinfluence

II (1) Important to haveprecise definitions

II (1)VI (1)

There is still uncertaintyas to what constituteslobbying

II (1)III (1 org)

Current wording israther abstract

VI (1)

Catch-all use of directlyand indirectly is lazy

III (1 org) Preparation, approvaland implementationphases need to beincluded

V (1)

The TransparencyRegister should give acomprehensive pictureof how an organisationtried to wield influence

X (1) Definition should beadjusted to that incurrent IIA, includingall institutions

X (1)

There appears to be atendency to overlooklawyers as potentiallobbyists at the nationallevel

VI (1) Clause is needed toprohibit unregisteredlobbyists entrance toits premises

X(1)





Register does notdistinguish lobbyingfrom intergovernmentalnegotiations

VI (1) Register shouldexclude all local,regional authoritiesand their officialbodies

VI (1)

Third countryembassies should beincluded in the list oforganisations

III (1)

Council of EU shouldbe covered byTransparency Register

III (1)


* VI (1 + 1 org), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section VI organisation (1) and the views ofa Section VI organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Nine of the fifteen respondents provide broad support for the suggested definition (one II, three III,one V, one VI, one X plus two from the other organisation: one III, one VI). One of the section IIIrespondents notes that ‘the definition of lobbying/interest representation in the lobby register is oneof the strongest elements of the present set-up’. However, another section III respondent considersthat the definition is unreasonably extensive commenting that ‘We do not believe that sending aposition paper by email could be reasonably considered as a lobbying activity. Also, the definitionleaves much room to interpretation: would, for instance, a speech given at a conference organized bya third-party organisation and attended by a Commission representative be considered as a lobbyingactivity covered by the Transparency Register’. A section VI respondent also considers the currentwording to be rather abstract, adding that ‘activities such as information events that are organisedby the European Commission would, in principle, fall within the scope of the current rules, meaningall that participants of such events should be called upon to register’. One additional comment fromanother organisation (section III) states that ‘The catch-all use of "directly or indirectly" is lazy andcan be used to raise incorrect suspicions or make flawed accusations’.

One section III respondent requests that activities covered in the Registry should focus on contactsin which decision-makers are actively engaged, adding that ‘The element of content and theexchanges of views should be the key elements, differentiating lobbying from networking/contacting.Such a differentiation will lead to less contacts being reported, but with additional in-depth and moremeaningful information’. One section II respondent though suggests that it is not true to say thatdefinition covers all activities carried out to influence. They highlight that ‘such activities are alsocarried out by the Commission to Parliament and Council, by Parliament to Commission and Council,and by the Council to Commission and Parliament as well as the other public sector bodies notcovered by the TR’.

One section X respondent notes that ‘the Transparency Register should constitute the centraltransparency hub, with other registers…linking to it. It should be possible…to get a comprehensivepicture of how exactly a particular organisation tried to wield influence’.


There is also a comment from a section X respondent that the ‘the legal profession often plays asignificant role in assisting interest groups to make their case to policy makers…Even though lawfirms are obliged to declare their clients if they are lobbying for them under the TransparencyRegister, a “grey” area…exists…where legal advice ends and lobbying…begins’.


A total of 16 of the responses are included in the sample. Table 5-11 summarises the key themesthat have been extracted from these responses. The themes have been grouped to combine similarissues, to highlight positive and negative aspects that have been raised on those issues and to drawin suggested solutions to the negative issues.

Table 5-11: Themes in response to Q2.1; n=16 (By language: DE=2, EN=9, FR=2, NL=1, PT=2)



Support for a broaddefinition

6 Theoretically appropriate,but unenforced andhidden

2 The definition must evolveas people circumvent it

1

Not true to say thatdefinition covers allactivities carried out toinfluence

1

There is still uncertaintyas to what constituteslobbying

1

There appears to be atendency to overlooklawyers as potentiallobbyists at the nationallevel

1

Define lobbying: what areacademics? (seecommentary)

1

All communicationmethods, direct, indirect,electronic, should berecorded

1

Where are the bribesregistered?

1 Ban lobbying 2


One respondent explains the difficulty of defining who is a lobbyist: ‘We saw that in the first roundwhen think tanks and law firms did not consider themselves as lobbyists. What about academics? Inmy case, I lecture in universities and conduct training courses (sometimes in EU institutions) – that isnot lobbying, but what about when I speak at EU oriented events – is that lobbying? Clear definitionsare needed so I can know if and what I need to register.

Other academics are clearly lobbying but think they are protected by their university titles. Forexample, … none of these people or their institutions are in the Transparency Register, but they areclearly lobbyists receiving money to influence the debate and coming to the European Parliament orCommission to “share their expertise” without declaring their funding.


Action point: Define clearly what types of activities are considered as required to open a dossier inthe Transparency Register, including what types of activities academics and scientists do that fallunder the category of lobbying and advocacy.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (216), German (71)and French (51) using the NVivo software. These words were checked against those in the themesmentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words. Although several new words wereidentified, on further examination of the context, it was seen that the associated themes had alreadybeen identified. By way of example, several section II respondents (lobbyists) called for the ‘scope’of the Register to be more explicit – but this is a rewording of the theme: important to have precisedefinitions.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in Spanish (11) revealed no furtherthemes.

Views on exclusions (Qn 2.2)5.3.3

Summary




There were 21 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 15 of the responses are included in the sample. A further six responses are added from otherorganisations (referred to as ‘org’ in the table). Table 5-12 summarises the key themes that havebeen extracted from these responses.




Changes to the exclusionregime need to beimplemented

III (1) The introduction of a'representativitycriterion' could be asolution

III (1)

Direct representatives oflocal authorities shouldbe exempted ofregistering in theTransparency Register

III (1)VI (3)

All interestrepresentatives thatundertake lobbyingactivities should beregistered

II (2)III (2 + 1

org)IV (1)

V (1 org)X (1)

Umbrella organisationswhose primary purpose isto lobby EU institutionsshould be registered

III (1)V (1)





EU institutions need toreinforce efforts to ensureall organisations whoshould sign up do so

III (1) Transparency registershould cover all actorsthat have an impact onEU decision-making

III (1)

Embassies and thirdcountries should becovered by the Register

III (2)

Churches and religiouscommunities should beincluded in the Register

II (1 org)

Potential lobbyinginfluence from MemberStates' service atnational, regional or locallevel should be capturedwhere national registersare missing

III (1 + 1org)

The register shouldcapture even moreentities

II (1)III (1)

Mandatory registration isrequired

III (1)IV (1)

Regional publicauthorities and local,municipal authorities andcities should be treatedequally

VI (1)X (1)

The Committee of theRegions register shouldbe used for regional andlocal authorityorganisations

VI (1)

Activities carried outunder social dialogueshould continue to beexcluded from the scopeof the Register

II (1)

Activities where EUInstitutions demand dataor where organisationsare invited to eventsshould be excluded fromthe scope of the Register

II (1) Registration shoulddepend on the nature ofthe activity and not thetype of entity

III (1)V (1)


* X (1), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section X organisation (1) while V (1 org)represents the views of a Section V organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Six of the Tier 1 respondents (two II, one III, one IV and two X), plus two other organisations (one III,one V) think that all interest representatives that undertake lobbying activities should be registered.These include examples such as:

‘all churches and religious communities, political parties, and regional public authorities and theirrepresentative offices should register if they are undertaking lobbying/representing their owninterests’


‘all churches and religious communities, political parties, Member States' government services,third countries' governments, international intergovernmental organisations and their diplomaticmissions, regional public authorities and their representative offices’.

There is considerable disagreement though on who should be registered, with four respondents(one III and three VI) commenting that direct representatives of local authorities should beexempted. In this regard, there is a comment that ‘the Register is incoherent in its approach in that“regional public authorities and their representative offices” have the choice as to whether or notthey register whereas “local, municipal authorities and cities as well as to associations and networkscreated to represent them” are obliged to register. Both types of entities should be treated equallyand therefore excluded from the scope of the register’. One section VI respondent notes that ‘theuse of front groups is a particular concern and should be made subject to greater public scrutiny’.

Two Tier 1 respondents (one III, one V) note that registration should depend on the nature of theactivity and not the type of entity. One section III respondent suggests the use of a ‘“representativitycriterion” as a solution making the Transparency Register compulsory for any organisation havingmembers in 2 or more different Member States’.

Two respondents (two III) suggest that embassies and third countries should be covered by theRegister. This is justified by comments such as ‘they often represent the interests of their businesscommunity or individual companies (“national champions”). Their influence on EU decision and law-making should be made transparent in the same way as the influence of NGOs, companies or tradeunions’ and ‘Of particular concern are the firms working for some of the world’s most autocraticregimes and human rights-abusing governments. Too many European PR firms and lobbyconsultancies are being paid to whitewash repressive regimes' images, smear dissidents andopponents, run their elections, hide their abuses, and lobby for lucrative investment, trade, aid, andpolitical support from the EU institutions. The US has strict reporting requirements forrepresentatives of foreign agents and the EU should follow suit’.


A total of 28 of the responses are included in the sample. Table 5-13 summarises the key themesthat have been extracted from these responses.

Table 5-13: Themes in response to Q2.2; n=28 (By language: DE=5, EN=13, ES=1, FR=6, IT=2, PL=1)



All interest representativesthat undertake lobbyingactivities should beregistered

16

Embassies and thirdcountries should be coveredby the Register

7


14

Regional public authoritiesand local, municipalauthorities and cities shouldbe treated equally

1


Table 5-13: Themes in response to Q2.2; n=28 (By language: DE=5, EN=13, ES=1, FR=6, IT=2, PL=1)



Include political partiesfrom third countries andinternational organisationsin the Register

6

Include political partieswithin the member states

7

Include governmentdepartments of memberstates

3


Half of the respondents specifically stated that religious organisations should be included and manyalso mentioned embassies, third countries, political parties and international organisations. Thisrespondent expresses the views of many:

‘Not clear why churches, government or political parties are not covered by the legislation in atransparent way. This opens the floodgates for almost any form of influence, let slip the "reallobbyists in church/partisan clothes." I find it downright incomprehensible to thwart a transparencyregime like this. Absolutely each influencing organization is to register without exception’ (translatedfrom German).

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (656), German (170),French (108) and Italian (36) using the NVivo software. These words were checked against those inthe themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words. Although several new wordswere identified, on further examination of the context, it was seen that the associated themes hadalready been identified.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in Spanish (21) and Dutch (11)revealed no further themes.


5.4 Register website (Qns 3.1)

Overview5.4.1

Respondents were asked for their views on the Register website20. Their views are summarised inthe table below.

Table 5-14: Views on the Register website (Qn 3.1)

Aspect of website

RegisteredOrganisations

(n=609)

UnregisteredOrganisations

(n=105)

Individuals(n=938)

Score*

(Rank)

Design and structure

52% Good

39% Average

5% Poor

39% Good

39% Average

5% Poor

32% Good

39% Average

12% Poor

1.03 (1)

Ease of search function

56% Good

33% Average

6% Poor

40% Good

30% Average

6% Poor

28% Good

32% Average

19% Poor

0.93 (2)

Availability of information / documents

53% Good

37% Average

6% Poor

21% Good

47% Average

3% Poor

25% Good

36% Average

19% Poor

0.72 (3)


21% Good

22% Average

5% Poor

14% Good

22% Average

2% Poor

17% Good

18% Average

12% Poor

0.34 (4)

Access via mobile devices

20% Good

22% Average

6% Poor

15% Good

28% Average

5% Poor

11% Good

18% Average

10% Poor

0.26 (5)

*Note that overall score based on a simple rating scale: Good =1, Average = 0, Poor = -1 multiplied by %responses and summed across all three stakeholder groups

‘No opinion’ responses have not been presented in this table

In general terms, registered organisations were most positive while individuals were least positive.The highest rated aspects were the website’s ‘design and structure’ and ‘ease of search function’.The two lowest rated aspects related to ‘accessibility’ and ‘access via mobile phones’ although mostrespondents (over 50% in each stakeholder group) offered ‘no opinion’ on these aspects.

Views on the website (Qn 3.1)5.4.2

Summary

There were 134 responses from organisations to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 14 of the responses are included in the sample


20http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do



There were 10 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 9 of the responses are included in the sample (this is because one comment was ‘not applicable’).A further five responses are added from other organisations (referred to as ‘org’ in the table).Table 5-15 summarises the key themes that have been extracted from these responses.




End user's perspectiveneeds to be considered

III (1) The TransparencyRegister should beimproved by addinginformation fromother databases

III (1 + 1org)X (1)

Greater information onthe lobbying activities oflobbyists is needed

VI (1 org) Lists of meetings ofhigh-level Commissionofficials with lobbyistsshould be included

II (1)III (2)X (1)

Membership of EUStructures andplatforms should beincluded

II (1)III (1)

EU institutionsthemselves shoulddevelop an integrated,accurate database

II (1)III (1 org)

The 100 most recentregistrants should beincluded

III (1)

There is no informationon sanctions

X (1)

News listing should bemore prominent

III (1) All news postingsshould be notified tothose registered

III (1)

The search functionneeds to be improved

III (3)X (1)

Search function shouldbe prominent on themain page of theRegister

III (1)

Website is clear andeasy to navigate

III (1 ++ 1 org)

The difficulty is accessto it from the EC orparliament websites

VI (1 org)

The Register should bemore accessible tothose with hearing,reading or otherdifficulties

X (1)VI (1 org)

The data should bemachine readable

X (1) Data should be madeavailable in API format

III (1)

Quality of data is notgood

III (2) Clearer guidance andadditional informationon the questionnaire isneeded

III (2)X (1)

There should be accessto historic data

III (1)





IT system is unstable soupdates are complexand lead toadministrative burden

II (1)

The technical teamshould be open tosuggestions by outsideusers

III (1)

Membership oforganisations should beincluded

II (1)III (1 org)


* III (1 + 1 org), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section III organisation (1) and the views ofa Section III organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Respondents to question 3.1 have a number of suggestions for changes to the Register website.These include four respondents (three III and one VI) who think the search function should beimproved. Specific suggestions include:

'The need for the search function to be prominent on the main page of the Register (section III)' ‘It would be good to be able also to search according to the areas of lobbying in order to use also

the register to fostering consultation and stakeholders' involvement and ensure moreparticipation of organisations promoting the public interest’ (section III)

‘search function also does not allow for ranking of the various registrations by different criteria,e.g. spending, even if you specifically search for that criteria. It is also difficult for third parties toeffectively access the data in bulk. It should also be possible to compare the differences in variousentries over time’ (section VI)

‘The search function should be improved and sensitised’ (section III)

Four respondents (one II, two III and one VI) request that lists of meetings of high-level Commissionofficials with lobbyists should be included. One respondent from section III notes that ‘Informationon Commission meetings with lobbyists is currently scattered over 98 different webpages. Also, themeetings are not linked to the registrations of lobbyists despite the fact that the link already exists inthe Commissions internal systems’. Another respondent (section VI) also asks for ‘information aboutthe Commission's various expert groups, and the participation of these lobbyists also on agencies'expert panels. Documents submitted by lobbyists could be uploaded to the register as well’.

Comments are also made on the quality of the data with two respondents (two III) stating that thequality is not good. One section III respondent expands on this by adding ‘the lack of guidance onhow to properly fill the data leads to incoherent data being filled in, impacting the efficiency and theusefulness of the Register website’. Two respondents (two III) suggest that clearer guidance andadditional information on the questionnaire is needed. One recommends that ‘introduction ofautomatic plausibility checks would avoid common mistakes, such as confusing turnover with lobbybudgets, and reduce the administrative burden for the JTRS’. One other section III respondentcomments on issues with ‘financial data where we believe a lot of confusion persists amongststakeholders’. Associated with this is a response from section II that the IT system is unstable soupdates are complex and lead to administrative burden. This is qualified with ‘Several of our


members experience difficulties during the yearly update. And since we as consultancies have to fill ina lot more information than other categories, this presents us with an unnecessary administrativeburden. We have also experienced that information has changed during the year without us havingmade changes’.


A total of 15 of the responses are included in the sample. Table 5-16 summarises the key themesthat have been extracted from these responses. The themes have been grouped to combine similarissues, to highlight positive and negative aspects that have been raised on those issues and to drawin suggested solutions to the negative issues.

Table 5-16: Themes in response to Q3.1; n=15 (By language: DE=1, EN=10, FR=2, IT=2)



The search function needsto be improved

4 After searching, you shouldbe able to download thefiltered results

1

Website is clear and easy tonavigate

1 Design is out of date 1

Quality of data is not good 1

Minor CSS bugs usingAndroid 4.2 browser onphone.

1

Extend lobbyist pages aboutthemselves

1

Translate the names oforganisations

1

Email notifications shouldhave direct links todocuments

1

Register gives legitimacy toundemocratic lobbyists,should be banned

1


One respondent made several points about the website, which are included in the table and added:‘I would mainly recommend extending the pages of each lobbyists group to include what are themain points they argued upon regarding what policies, and what are their usual arguments andpublic positions. That would allow somebody to familiarize themselves more easily with the variouslobbying groups and get a better picture of what is going on.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (192), German (69)and French (30) using the NVivo software. These words were checked against those in the themesmentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words. Review of the words ‘link’ led to the theme:that related information needs to be better hyperlinked (from a diverse range of respondents). Also,the word ‘ausgaben’ (expenditure) led to several co-ordinated responses from major Germancompanies with the common theme that: estimated costs for EU advocacy repeatedly overstate thelobbying expenditures, lead users astray and undermine transparency. Further brief manual


inspection of comments from responses in Italian (10) revealed a further request (from anindividual) that all pages of the site should be made available in all EU languages.

5.5 Additional comments (Qn 4 and additional files)

Overview5.5.1

There were 131 responses from organisations providing additional comments. A total of 13 of theresponses are included in the sample

There were 172 responses from individuals providing additional comments. A total of 15 of theresponses are included in the sample.

Comments from Organisations5.5.2

There were 10 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. All 10of the responses are included in the sample. A further three responses have been added from otherorganisations (referred to as ‘org’ in the table). Table 5-17 summarises the key themes that havebeen extracted from these responses.

Table 5-17: Themes in response to Q4; n=13 (By section: I = 0, II = 1, III = 6, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 3, X = 2)



The Transparencyregister is an importantelement in making EUdecision making moretransparent

VI (1) Dramatic overhaul ofTransparency register isrequired

X (1)

The balance achievedsince 2011 issatisfactory and doesnot require extensiveintervention

V (1)

Good to see the lobbyissue is being addressed

III (1 org) The Inter-InstitutionalAgreement is a uniqueopportunity for reform

III (1) The negotiations on theIIA should be as openand transparent aspossible

III (1)

Non-binding TRresulting frominterinstitutionalagreements isunsatisfactory

II (1) The IIA should mentionthe right to complain tothe EuropeanOmbudsman

X (1)

Need to use allincentives to have asystem that is asmandatory as possible

III (1)X (1)

Unregistered lobbygroups should no longerbe able to meet officials,organise events orparticipate in hearings orexpert groups

III (3)

Register must be mademandatory

II (1)III (3)

A legal basis is requiredto make the TR legallyobligatory

II (1)


Table 5-17: Themes in response to Q4; n=13 (By section: I = 0, II = 1, III = 6, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 3, X = 2)



More information isneeded on lobbyingexpenditure

III (2)X (1)

Registrants shouldspecify third partyorganisations that theypay and how much theypay

III (2)

All EU institutionsshould be included inthe revisedTransparency Register

III (3)X (1)

Trilogue process needsto become moretransparent

VI (1)

Quality of data inregister need to beimproved

III (3) Systematic checks on atleast 20% of declarationsare needed annually

III (3)

There should beincentives to complywith the Register

III (1)

Better monitoring ofdata entered into theregistry

III (2) Updates should becompulsory and twiceper year

III (1)

Sanctions must be inplace for inaccurate ormisleading information

III (4)

Suspended lobby groupsshould be placed on apublic list

III (3)

All individuals lobbyingon behalf of a registrantshould be listed

III (2)

Separation is neededbetween authenticlobbyists and otherentities

V (1)

Public authoritiescannot be equated tolobbying or asstakeholders

VI (1) The Committee of theRegion (CoR) registershould be used for publicbodies

VI (1)

A balance is needed inexpert groups betweenbusiness/corporateconcerns and non-business related entities

VI (1)

An effective complaintsystem is needed

III (2)


* III (1), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section III organisation (1) while III (1 org)represents the views of a Section III organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents


Many of the comments on question 4 reiterate views that have been expressed in responses toprevious questions. Also, three of the responses from section III are very similar, all noting the needto improve the quality of the data in the Register with suggestions to undertake checks on 20% ofdeclarations on an annual basis, the need for the Register to be mandatory, for unregistered lobbygroups to no longer be able to meet with EU officials and for suspended lobby groups to be placedon a public register. Some additional information is given, for example, ‘Lobby turnover should bedisclosed to the nearest 10,000 euros and not according to the present system of wide brackets’ and‘All lobby consultancies and law firms should be required to list, alongside the specific lobby revenuereceived from each client, the precise issues upon which they lobby and / or advise each client’.

Three respondents (one V, one VI, and one VI from other organisations) provided positive commentsin relation to the current Transparency Register, although both of the Tier 1 respondents addedpoints on how it could be further improved. One section VI respondent included the need for‘ensuring a balance in expert groups between those representing business/corporate concerns andthose representing non-business-related entities, including the public sector’. The section Vrespondent noted that ‘The “lobbying”/“interest representation” terminology is often associatedwith terms like “business”, “clients”, “profits”; is historically linked to economic interests… Thequestionnaire for the present consultation also refers in various passages to the lobbying/interestrepresentation terminology as if fitting all entities concerned…It would also be opportune to have anelement of separation and distinction between authentic lobbyists/interest representatives; andentities that do not belong to that ambit’.

One section X respondent highlights the use of complaints to the European Ombudsman to ‘addressconcerns…about the fact that the JTRS21 administers the Register and, at the same time, isresponsible for investigating complaints and deciding on the appropriate sanctions’.

Comments from Individuals5.5.3

There were 172 responses from individuals to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 15 of the responses are included in the sample. Table 5-18 summarises the key themes thathave been extracted from these responses.

Table 5-18: Themes in response to Q4; n=15 (By language: DE=5, EN=7, FR=1, IT=1, NL=1)



Register must be mademandatory

3

All EU institutions should beincluded in the revisedTransparency Register

2

There should be incentives tocomply with the Register

1

Sanctions must be in place forinaccurate or misleadinginformation

2

Media does not reflect theactions of lobbyists

1 Clearer communication aboutpublic consultations

2

Improve transparency ofmember states

2

21The Commission’s Joint Transparency Register Secretariat


Table 5-18: Themes in response to Q4; n=15 (By language: DE=5, EN=7, FR=1, IT=1, NL=1)



As well as IIA, should be alobbying directive, giving legalframework and all definitions

1

Public should be able tocomment on position papers

1

Citizens must have greaterinput

1 Publish calendar of meetingson Register so public canattend

1

Strict conditions on access topoliticians by lobbyists

2

Allow access to answers inthis consultation, the bestideas will emerge

1


Many of the comments on question 4 reiterate views that have been expressed in responses toprevious questions. This respondent voices the views of many; ‘I am a firm supporter of theEuropean Union and I think especially nowadays it's imperative to show citizens how policy is madein the EU and how much big spenders are pumping into lobbying. A lot of people […] view thelobbying system as highly corrupt. 20,000 lobbyists, of which 70% or more come from big industriesis just not right. I want the EU to be a political, social and, yes, economical Union, but I don't wantthe governing forces to be financial.’

Another respondent makes a specific point about access: ‘[The lobbying system] seems to be widelyabused by lobbyists to promote their own interests, which are not necessarily those of the public. […]One solution is that lobbyists must not approach politicians directly. Instead, politicians should ask acentral data source for information on lobbyists that have offered their advice on a topic. Thenpoliticians could pick and choose which lobbyists to consult’ (translated from German).

Further detail about a possible legal framework for lobbying is given by one respondent: ‘The Inter-Institutional Agreement with regards to the Transparency Register and the Code of Conduct attachedis not enough for EU. EU needs a lobbying directive which would fundament the lobby activity in theEP, EC and in all other European institutions. This directive should create a legal framework fornational lobbying legislation of the EU member countries. It should include specific terms withregards to what is a lobbying action and what is not a lobbying action (which one should be declaredand which one is illegal). It should trace a verge between lobbying and corruption, between lobbyingand political consultancy, between lobbying and donations to political parties, between lobbying andpresents done to MPs, Commissioners and other EU and EU member state officials. It should alsolimit the possibility of doing lobbying for those companies that are providers of goods and servicesfor EU and national institutions (according to public acquisition contracts), because these companiescould be places in a privileged position in comparison to other lobbyists.

It is clear that the interest of the EU citizens is above the interests of EU lobbyists. Thus, the Registershould render the possibility to act against the actions of lobbyists (ex. if a position paper of alobbyist creates a major dissatisfaction to the EU citizens they should have the possibility to commentupon it and make the decision factors take into consideration also their opinion - that is why theposition papers have to be accessible not only to officials, but to the whole public).’



33 respondents attached position papers or similar documents, of which seven were associated withcampaigns. The remaining 26 papers were briefly reviewed and 23 are summarised in the tablebelow (three respondents did not wish their contributions to be published). Several documentsfrom unregistered section VI organisations (Austrian local and regional authorities) have alreadybeen considered with reference to the associated campaign – and are not repeated here.

Table 5-19: Summary of attached documents (from publishable contributions)

ID Type* Document nameFormat

(Lang)Description

a) 0There can be no democracyin the EU withouttransparency

Word(EN)

General paper on the importance of transparency, 6pages

b) U-IICircular economy and our lifestyle

PDF (EN)O3 makes Free Consultants, paper on CircularEconomy and Life Style, 11 pages

c) 0 Policy brief Anca Stoica PDF (EN)

Brief written by a student in the Netherlands:Transparency Register, the way forward. Putsforward the concept of a points system forcategorising organisations according to thecompleteness of their entries, 6 pages.

d) R-IIIDemocracy_Policy_Position_ADOPTED

PDF (EN)European Movement International: Citizensparticipation and transparency: closing the gap, 2pages.

e) U-VI2015_offener_brief_rgre__bv_schreiben_transparenzregister_-_timmermans

PDF (EN)

Council of European Municipalities and Regions:open letter about the Transparency Register sayingthey have concerns, but these are not listed in thisdocument, 2 pages.

f) 0Jukka_RANNILA_Mandatory_Transparency_Register

PDF (DE)Comments from Jukka S. Rannila, individual fromFinland. Detailed technical discussion about theRegister’s operation, 12 pages.

g) 0 Amnesty International PDF (EN)Comprehensive response to the open-text questionsin Section A, 6 pages.

h) R-II Lobbying in BrusselsPDF (DE& EN)

AK Wien (Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour)Lobbying in Brussels: breaking the excessive powerof corporations, 40 page report

i) U-VI Position paper BayerPDF (DE& EN)

Bavarian State Government Further development ofthe European Transparency Register, 4 pages

j) R-III

EAPN 22 mai 2014 EP PDF (NL)European Anti Poverty Network: info for an electionin 2014, 3 pages

EAPN PEP reportPDF(EN)

European Anti Poverty Network: Report of the 2015PEP (People Experiencing Poverty) conference, theprocess preparing the meeting and the evaluation ofEAPN Netherlands, 4 pages

EAPN PDF (NL)European Anti Poverty Network: Together lookingfor change, A guide for clients WWB (ParticipationAct) with, Directions applying for benefits, 17 pages

k) U-VIBonn offener brief PDF

(DE)

As Campaign 2 document (see Table 4-3)

Bonn to Timmermans As e) - above

l) U-III ITCO declaration TR PDF (EN)

ITCO European Parliament Intergroup: Input for thepublic consultation on the Inter-institutionalAgreement on a Mandatory Transparency Register,1 page, six key themes


Table 5-19: Summary of attached documents (from publishable contributions)

ID Type* Document nameFormat

(Lang)Description

m) U-III READO PDF (EN)Rural Education & Agriculture developmentOrganisation (Somalia/Somaliland) profile about theorganisation, 9 pages

n) U-VI COSLA PDF (EN)

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)Letter about status of Local Authorities and theirassociations – argues that associations of localauthorities should not have to register, 3 pages

o) R-VIBetter Regulation CEMRposition

PDF (EN)CCRE CEMR ( Council of European Municipalities andRegions) Position paper on Better Regulation forBetter Results, 11 pages

p) R-II DIHK Triloge PDF (DE)German Industry and Commerce: Consultation ofthe European Ombudsman on the transparency oftrilogy, paper, 6 pages

q) U-VI Lombardia testo non ufficiale PDF (IT) Completed questionnaire

r) R-VIInsurance Europe response toPC

PDF (EN) Insurance Europe: completed questionnaire

s) U-II CNB contribution PDF (FR)National Bar Council (France) : opinion on Frenchlawyers and lobbying, 33 pages

t) 0The role of lobbying inmodern democracy A. Bitonti

PDF (EN) A chapter of a book, 11 pages

u) R-IIICEEP response TransparencyRegister

PDF (EN)

European Centre of Employers and Enterprisesproviding Public Services: Three key themes inaddition to the questionnaire, in order: sort outissues with the Register first (guidance, monitoring,sanctions), make it mandatory, enable everyone toaccess it, 2 pages.

v) R-II

BNPP Charter for responsibleRepresentation

PDF (EN)BNP Paribas Group: Charter for responsiblerepresentation with respect to the publicauthorities, 3 pages

Guide des dépenses TI PDF (FR)

Transparency International: Reporting Guidelobbying expenses. The National Assembly is theonly French institution to ask lobbyists to reporttheir budgets devoted to parliamentary lobbying:details how this operates, 4 pages.

w) R-III

Lobby Control study law firms PDF (EN)ALTER-EU: Lobbying Law Firms, Unfinished Business.Details nine law firms that ALTER-EU believes arelobbying but are not on the Register, 9 pages.

Reply from JunckerTimmermans nov 2015

PDF (EN)Letter to ALTER-EU explaining the EC response tothree themes important to ALTER-EU, 3 pages.

who is meeting whom PDF (EN)

ALTER-EU Who is meeting who? The lobbymeetings of the new European Commission,detailed look at how many meetings DGs hold withbusiness v citizen groups, 10 pages

* Type of respondent: 0 = individual; U-II = unregistered section II organisation, etc.; and R-III = registeredsection III organisation, etc.


6 Analysis of Part B Questions

6.1 Introduction

Part B of the questionnaire comprised 13 questions which addressed eight themes as listed below:

Structure of the Register (Qn B1.1) Data disclosure and quality (Qns B2.1, B2.2, B2.3, B2.4) Code of conduct and procedure for alerts and complaints (Qns B3.1, B3.2a, B3.2b) Register website – registration and updating (Qn B4.1) Current advantages linked to registration (Qn B5.1) Features of a future mandatory system (Qns B6.1, B6.2) Looking beyond Brussels (Qn B7.1) Additional comments

The Part B questions were answered by 763 respondents with nearly 500 respondents representingorganisations registered on the Transparency Register

Table 6-1: Summary of respondents to Part B questions

Nature of RespondentPart A Part B*

% respondentsproceeding to Part B

An individual in my personal capacity 975 246 25%


620 495 80%


163 22 13%

Totals 1758 763 43%

* Note that of these 763 respondents who proceeded to Part B, 12 were part of the campaigns consideredearlier. As a consequence, the analysis which follows is based on 751 responses to Part B questions

The responses by theme are summarised below.

6.2 Structure of the Register (Qn B1.1)

Overview6.2.1

Organisations registered on the Register did not generally encounter any difficulties with thiscategorisation. However, as illustrated in the figure below, a substantial portion of unregisteredorganisations claimed to have encountered difficulties.


Figure 6-1: Qn B1.1: The Register invites organisations to sign up under a particular section, for example,professional consultancies, NGOs, trade associations, etc. (Annex I of the Interinstitutional Agreement).Have you encountered any difficulties with this categorisation?

Views on categorisation (Qn B1.1)6.2.2

Summary

There were 68 responses from organisations to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 10 of the responses are included in the sample

There were 31 responses from individuals to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 8 of the responses are included in the sample.


There were 10 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 7 of the responses are included in the sample. A further three responses have been added fromother organisations. Table 6-2 summarises the key themes that have been extracted from theseresponses.

Table 6-2: Themes in response to QB1.1; n=10 (By section: I = 0, II = 4, III = 4, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 1, X = 0)



The homogeneity ofsection V should bepreserved

V (1) The category NGO is toobroad

III (1)

The representativenessof NGOs should beexamined in the sameway as for socialpartners

II (1)III (1 org)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Registered (n=484)

Individual (n=245)

Unregistered (n=22)

Yes

No

No opinion





Guidelines should beclearer with examples

III (1)V (1)

A separation ofassociations wouldhelp

II (1 + 1org)

III (1 org)

Trade unions andprofessionalassociations should bereplaced by socialpartners

II (1)

European SocialPartners should bedistinct from otherinterestrepresentatives

II (1)III (1 org)

A number oforganisations categorisethemselves wrongly

III (1 + 1org)

There should be nodifference betweenregional and localauthorities

VI (1)

Key (abbreviated) to sections: I: Professional consultancies, etc.; II: In-house lobbyists and associations; III:Non-governmental organisations, etc.; IV: Research and academic institutions; V: Organisations representingchurches etc.; VI: Sub-national authorities and X: Tier 1 organisation outside scope of Register‘org’ refers to views from a non-Tier 1 respondent


Specific issues are raised with most categorisations:

Section II: ‘A separation of associations as follows would help: associations mostly representingcommercial members; associations mostly representing non-commercial members; associationsrepresenting a profession; and trade unions’ and ‘Only strictly not for profit associations whichare advocating for non-commercial, nonprofessional interests should be under the categoryNGOs’

Section III: ‘We suggest to separate NGOs from Foundations…NGOs and Foundations are bothnot for profit organisations, but foundations have a grant making role’ and ‘it should beconsidered to clearly separate corporate from non-commercial interests by moving thesubsection ‘Trade Unions and Professional Associations’ either into its own category orintegrating it into ‘III. Non-Governmental organisations’.

Section V: ‘A quotation from paragraph 13 of the relevant 2014 interinstitutional agreement(“The register does not apply to churches and religious communities. However, therepresentative offices or legal entities, offices and networks created to represent churches andreligious communities in their dealings with the EU institutions, as well as their associations, areexpected to register”) could be inserted as the heading of Section V of the Register, so that it isvisualised…every time the Section is opened’.


Section VI: ‘Section 2.2…inappropriately recognises that “Regional public authorities and theirrepresentative offices do not have to register but can register if they wish to do so… wespecifically request that the IIA on the Transparency Register and the Guidelines specifically saythat “Representations of national, regional and local governments and their associations shouldnot fall under the EU transparency register, as they are part of the EU’s multi-level system ofgovernance”’



Table 6-3: Themes in response to QB1.1; n=8 (By language: DE=3, EN=5)



The category NGO is too broad 2

The representativeness of NGOsshould be examined in the sameway as for social partners

1

European Social Partnersshould be distinct from otherinterest representatives

1

Organisations with multiple rolescannot categorise themselves

1

Transparency must cover allorganisations supportinglobbying

1

Definitions are bloated andcomplex

1

Definitions must evolve overtime

1

Organisations should not registerthemselves, they can cheat, thereis no-one checking their accuracy

1


There are a range of issues relating to categorisation: concerns about the NGO category and theEuropean Social Partners are the only issues that occur more than once.

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (68) using NVivo.These words were checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any‘new’ words. One word was reported several times but, on closer inspection, was found to refer toa commercial company, the name of which had been repeated many times within a singlesubmission. A further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in German (13) did notreveal any further themes.


6.3 Data disclosure and quality (Qns B2.1, B2.2, B2.3, B2.4)

Overview6.3.1

Entities joining the Register are asked to provide certain information (contact details, goals andremit of the organisation, legislative dossiers followed, fields of interest, membership, financial data,etc.) in order to identify the profile, the capacity of the entity and the interest represented (Annex Iof the Interinstitutional Agreement). Respondents were asked to rate various aspects of this. Theresults are summarised in the table below.

Table 6-4: Views on data disclosure and quality by respondent group

(Note that responses of ‘no opinion’ have not been presented in this table)

Aspect of Register being considered:


(n = 484)


(n = 22)

Individuals

(n=245)

The right type of information is requiredfrom the registrant:

66% fully agree

21% too much

10% too little

55% fully agree

23% too much

9% too little

58% fully agree

7% too much

27% too little

It is easy to provide the informationrequired:

49% fully agree

42% partially agree

7% disagree

45% fully agree

27% partially agree

14% disagree

41% fully agree

31% partially agree

4% disagree

Do you see any room for simplification asregards the data disclosure requirements?

37% yes

34% no

27% yes

36% no

27% yes

37% no

What is your impression of the overall dataquality in the Register?

42% good

35% average

11% poor

41% good

27% average

14% poor

27% good

44% average

16% poor

Note: Since responses of ‘no opinion’ have not been included, the % figures for each aspect add up to less than100%

In general terms, there was broad satisfaction with the existing situation and the variation inresponses was similar across the different stakeholder groups. However, further attention was givento responses from registered organisations with respect to whether the right type of information isrequired to see of responses varied by section of the Register. The responses are illustrated below.


Figure 6-2: Qn B2.1: Is the right type of information required from the registrant? (Responses fromregistered organisations by section of the Register)

Although most organisations are content with the status quo, it can be seen that there are viewsthat too little information is being requested particularly amongst NGOs (Section III) whilst at theother end, there are many who think that too much information is being requested particularlyamongst in-house lobbyists and associations (Section II) and sub-national authorities (Section VI).

Views on level of data disclosure (Qn B2.1)6.3.2

Summary



In relation to comments from registered organisations, those who considered that too little or toomuch information was requested were more likely to provide further comments as illustrated in thetable below.

Table 6-5: Response to closed questions by those providing an open text response

Response to closed questionNumber of

respondentsNumber providingfurther comments

% providingcomments

Too little is asked 50 38 76%

Fully agree 319 47 15%

Too much is asked 100 63 63%

No opinion 15 3 20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

V: Organisations representingchurches etc (n=5)

VI: Sub-national authorities(n=19)

II: In-house lobbyists andassociations (n=279)

I: Professional consultanciesetc (n=53)


III: Non-governmentalorganisations, etc (n=109)

Too much

Fully agree

Too little

No opnion



There were 14 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 10 of the responses are included in the sample. A further five responses have been added fromother organisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted fromthese responses.




Level of disclosurecurrently required issatisfactory

V (1) Staff not in theEuropean Parliamentaccess list may needdefining as a lobbyist

III (1) More information isrequired on individuallobbyists

III (3 + 1org),

VI (1 org),X (1)

Entries should beupdated more regularly

X (1) Entries should beautomatically linked toinformation

III (1)

Details requested areunbalanced

III (1) Need for automaticplausibility checks

III (1)

The financialinformation requiredbears no relationship tothe legitimate objectiveof transparency

II (1) Up-to-date financialinformation is needed

III (1)

Lobby turnover shouldbe disclosed to thenearest 10,000 euros

III (1 + 1org)

Lobby dossierdisclosure is poorlypoliced

III (1)

Funding sourcesshould be disclosed

III (1 org)

Details required inregister are limitedcompared with otherlobbying registrationsystems

III (1) There should be anoption for registrantsto upload papers thatseek to influence EUinstitutions

III (1)

Information on whohas been sanctioned isneeded

III (1)

The design of theRegister is impossiblefor public bodies tocomplete accurately

VI (1)

More guidance isneeded for registrants

II (1 + 1org),X (1)

Policy areas need to belimited to a pre-selected set forpracticality purposes

II (1)





The specificities ofcertain professionsshould be recognised

II (2) Registrants shouldspecify third partorganisations throughwhich they conducttheir lobbying

II (1)III (1 + 1

org)



There is some disagreement over the extent to which the information requirements are satisfactory.One section V respondent noted that they were, but others identified areas that they felt neededimprovement:

Section II: ‘The breadth and detail of the financial information required…bears no relationship tothe legitimate objective of transparency…and results in the disclosure of information that shouldremain private, such as the structure of the internal organization of the entity engaging inlobbying, its cost structure and profit’ and ‘The calculation of costs and 'man-days' could beclarified’.

Section III: ‘When compared internationally to other lobbying registration systems, for example,in the United States and Canada, the degree of detail of the information provided is more limitedand the data quality is much lower’.

Section X: ‘More information about the individual lobbyists working in Brussels is required,specifically to check possible conflicts of interest that could arise from the revolving door,whereby EU officials move to work for the private sector in areas that they previously used toregulate’ and ‘Entries should be updated more regularly…In Canada, lobbyists are required toprovide monthly reports of their lobbying activities’.

There is also a number of comments relating to the specificities of certain professions. One section IIrespondent notes that ‘the obligation for a lawyer to provide information on the legislative dossiersfollowed may conflict with his/her obligations under the rules of professional secrecy or legalprofessional privilege’. This can be compared with a response from Section III that ‘too manyorganisations making only general, imprecise declarations; this needs remedying so that the registerprovides a clear picture of who is lobbying on what. Furthermore, all lobby consultancies and lawfirms should be required to list, alongside the specific lobby revenue received from each client, theprecise issues upon which they lobby and / or advise each client’.

One section X respondent suggests that there is ‘room…for more practical guidance or rules forpublic officials on contacts with lobbyists’.



A total of 8 of the responses are included in the sample as summarised below.

Table 6-7: Themes in response to QB2.1; n=8 (By language: DE=1, EN=4, ES=1, FR=1, IT=1)



Level of disclosure currentlyrequired is satisfactory

2 Registration is voluntary andthe benefits are insufficient toencourage registration

1 Sanctions required forinaccurate or incompleteinformation

1

Data is inaccurate 2 Lobby dossier disclosure ispoorly policed

1

Require organisations toupload their internal EthicalCode of Conduct (seecommentary)

1

Publish lobbyists’ requestsbefore meetings

1

Make all data publicallyavailable, so everyoneknows who is lobbying.

1


One respondent explains the need for lobbyists’ internal Ethical Code of Conduct to be published:‘While the Transparency Register has a code of conduct for how all members of organisationsregistered must conduct themselves when dealing with EU officials and transparency procedures,there should be a place available on the registry where organisations will be expected to upload theirown ethical codes of conduct. All organisations doing business within the European Union shouldhave clearly stated principles that guide how their members must at all times act, and if they areeasily available on the registry, they can be held to account should their behaviour be non-compliant.

What is important to note here is that many organisations not only do not have ethical codes ofconduct, they actually encourage law-breaking and ethically outrageous activity. Certain NGOs andlobby groups calling for restrictions on conventional agriculture or chemicals openly and knowinglyconvey alarmist half-truths, use children in their lobbying practices, break EU laws and openly attackand criticise competitors or alternative. If they fail to comply with basic European ethical norms,which they themselves must declare in the registry, alerts should be made and sanctions applied….

Action point: Provide a section in the Register for organisations to upload their internal ethical codesof conduct and consider a dossier as incomplete if they fail to comply.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (115) and German (48)using NVivo. These words were checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see ifthere were any ‘new’ words. No new words were identified.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in French (22) revealed a concern froma two organisations (Sections I and II) that double counting needs to be taken into consideration; e.g.when one company makes a contribution to another, both companies record the exact samecontribution in the transparency register which results in misleading figures.


Views on ease of information provision (Qn B2.2)6.3.3

Summary



In relation to comments from registered organisations, those who partially agreed or disagreed thatit is easy to provide the information required were far more likely to provide additional commentsand suggestions than those who agreed as illustrated in the table below.




% providingcomments

Fully agree 237 11 5%

Partially agree 204 85 42%

Disagree 35 27 77%

No opinion 8 1 13%


There were 10 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. All 10of the responses are included in the sample. A further three responses have been added from otherorganisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted from theseresponses.




It is easy to provide theinformation required

III (1)X (1)

Registration isburdensome forregistrants

II (2) Need for automaticalerts that askregistrants to confirmimplausibledeclarations

III (1)

Administrative burdenis reasonable

III (1) Administrative burdenassociated with updatesis unreasonable

VI (1 org)

Companies sometimeslist total turnoverinstead of lobbyexpenditure

X (1) Clear/more guidance isneeded

II (2)III (2 + 1

org)VI (1 org)

X (1)

Some information isunnecessarilycomplicated

III (1) Separate budget linescould be requested forlobbying expenditure

III (1)

Information on costs forconsultancies isirrelevant

II (1)III (2 org)

Drop-down menusshould be used wherepossible

III (1)





Register is not designedfor public bodies makingaccurate data provisionimpossible

VI (1)

Estimating data onmembership costs iscomplicated andburdensome

II (1)


* III (2 + 1 org), for example, represents the views from two Tier 1 Section III organisations (2) and the viewsof a Section III organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Two respondents (one III and one VI) consider that is it easy to provide the information. One sectionIII respondent also adds that the administrative burden is reasonable. Two respondents, both fromsection II, however, comment that registration is burdensome. These add that ‘The requirementscurrently…impose too heavy a burden on the registrants without corresponding benefits from atransparency perspective’ and that ‘it is often very complicated and burdensome for companies andtrade associations to assemble all the data on membership costs…This information is then oftensubject to various possible misinterpretations which can create unjustified claims of alleged non-compliance’. A similar point is made by a respondent from section X who comments that‘sometimes it can be difficult to separate one's accounts into lobbying activities and non-lobbyingactivities if this distinction is not made by the accounting department in the annual accounts’. Aresponse from one of the other organisations (section VI) also notes that the ‘upgrade requires hugeadministrative burden’.

Two respondents comment on the FTE calculation. One (section III) considers it ‘unnecessarycomplicated’ while the other asks for ‘better guidance on how to calculate Full-Time Equivalents orLobby budgets so that entries in the register are comparable’. One section III respondent broadensout the discussion noting that ‘the lobbying expenditure in particular data accuracy might beimproved by asking for the different budget lines (staff, office, consulting/communications budgets…)separately’. These issues are covered in requests for clearer or more guidance, with one section IIrespondent focusing on the need for ‘improving and simplifying… the recent guideline on FinancialInformation’.

One section II respondent from Tier 1 and two other organisations (both section III) focus on therequirement for consultancies to provide information on the costs for carrying out activities. TheTier 1 respondent feels that ‘it is the revenues that should be disclosed’ to avoid asking for ‘theconsultancy’s margins which is business sensitive’.


A total of 6 of the responses are included in the sample. The table overleaf summarises the keythemes that have been extracted from these responses.


Table 6-10: Themes in response to QB2.2; n=8 (By language: DE=1, EN=4, ES=1, FR=1, IT=1)



It is easy to provide theinformation required

2 It should not be too easy 1

Difficult to define “number oflobbyists” and “activities”

1

Lobbyists should uploadposition papers and opinionsonto the Register, so citizenscan see them.

1


Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (98) using Nvivo.These words were checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any‘new’ words. No new words were identified.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in German (24) and French (22)reiterated calls for extra guidance including (from two indviduals) for clarification for alculating thenumber of staff involved in lobbying activities are required, e.g. should a member of staff arranging ameeting be considered part of lobbying activities?

Views on simplification of process (Qn B2.3)6.3.4

Summary



In relation to comments from registered organisations, those who could see room for simplificationas regards the data disclosure requirements were far more likely to provide additional commentsand suggestions than those who could not as illustrated in the table below.




% providingcomments

Yes 177 95 54%

No 164 19 12%

No opinion 143 3 2%


There were nine Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. Allnine of the responses are included in the sample. A further four responses have been added fromother organisations. The table overleaf summarises the key themes that have been extracted fromthese responses.





The system could bemade simpler

X (1)III (1 org)

A list of dossiers thatregistrants could selectwould help makeregistration simpler

X (1)

More data should berequired

III (1)VI (1 org)

X (1)

Automatic error alertscould be programmed

X (1)

Data disclosurerequirements needstrengthening

II (1) Additional guidancewould be welcome

II (1)III (1)

A gradual disclosureinformation linked tolevel of interactioncould help reduceadmin burden

III (1)

An additional categoryof lobbyists should beadded for those thatare most active andhave biggest budgets

III (1)

Should be a principlefor updating of entrieswhen significantchanges occur

III(1)

Membership feedisclosurerequirements could besimplified

III (1 org)

Yes/No answersshould be avoided

III (1 org)



A number of suggestions are made by different respondents for how the data disclosurerequirements could be simplified. Three respondents (one III, one VI from Tier 1 and one III from theother organisations) think that more data should be required, including ‘on the critical question ofwho is funding interest representatives’. Other responses by section are:

Section II: ‘the recent guideline on Financial Information…needs improving and simplifying’.

Section III: ‘rather than asking for regular updates, they should occur, for example, when lobbyexpenditure falls into a new category. At least one annual update should be maintained’ and‘Binary Yes/No answers should be avoided because answers are often more nuanced’.

Section X: ‘it could be simpler to list different types of lobby expenditure by client, and then namethe dossiers worked on. This will also help to increase the accuracy of the estimated amountspent on lobbying’.


One suggestion (from a section III) respondent is to use a gradual disclosure requirement where‘small organisations with little interactions with the institutions should disclose a minimum, whileorganisations with larger lobby budgets and many interactions should provide much more detailedinformation’. The same respondent also suggests inclusion of an ‘additional category of lobbyists forthose organisations that are most active and have the biggest budgets…Organisations having morethan 3 high-level meetings per year with Commissioners or…spending more than 1 million eurosannually on their lobbying activities should receive additional scrutiny…Currently, about 500organisations would fall in this category’.


There were 21 responses from individuals to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 7 of the responses are included in the sample as summarised below.

Table 6-13: Themes in response to QB2.3; n=7 (By language: DE=1, EN=4, ES=1, FR=1)



Limit the detail required (seecommentary)

2

Enable to preparation of registrationinformation off-line and import

1

Enable links to organisations’websites where the data is publicallyavailable.

1

Protect individual’s personal data 1

Ensure that organisations with fewresources get exactly the sameamount of access time asprofessional lobbyists

1

Only register organisationscommitted to a transparent anddemocratic Europe

1


One respondent is concerned to limit the information required: ‘Too much information continues toproduce some misinformation’ translated from Spanish.

Another respondent expands on the concept of giving equal access: ‘Professional lobbyists shoulddisclose exactly how much they spend schmoozing MEPs, Commissioners etc. The same access shouldbe given, minute by minute, to people without these resources’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (98) using NVivo.These words were checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any‘new’ words. A review of the word ‘badge’ revealed several identical responses from differentoffices of Transparency International (registered section III organisation) covering the themeidentified above: ‘A gradual disclosure information linked to level of interaction could help reduceadmin burden’.

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in German (27) did not reveal any newthemes.


Views on data quality of the Register (Qn B2.4)6.3.5

Summary



In relation to comments from registered organisations, 85% of those who considered the overalldata quality in the Register to be poor provided additional comments and suggestions compared tothe 8% of those who considered the overall data quality in the Register to be good as illustrated inthe table below.




% providingcomments

Good 204 16 8%

Average 167 53 32%

Poor 53 45 85%

No opinion 60 9 15%


There were 9 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. All 9 ofthe responses are included in the sample. A further three responses have been added from otherorganisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted from theseresponses.




Most registrants spenda lot of time andresources to get thedata right

II (1) Almost half the entriesin the Register areflawed

III (3)X (1)

EU TransparencyRegister secretariatneeds to beadequately staffed toundertake checks

III (2)VI (1)X (2)

Lack of guidance makesentry into the Registerburdensome

III (1) Simplification andclarification is needed

III (1)

A minimum number ofentries must bechecked each year

III (3)

Limited monitoring andlack of sanctions meandata quality is poor

III (1 + 1org)

A proper monitoringsystem forregistrations is needed

III (1 + 1org)





Software should beused to alertregistrants to unlikely-looking postings

III (1)

Effective use ofsanctions is required

III (1)

Public democraticallyelected bodies shouldnot be equated withprivate interests

VI (1)

Comparability of lobbycosts is poor

II (1) Priority should beplaced on ensuringaccuracy of financialdata

III (1)



Five of the respondents (three III, one VI from Tier 1 and one III from the other organisations)highlight the report by Transparency International and that ‘over half the entries for lobbyorganisations on the EU Transparency Register, 4,253 organisations at the time, contained factualerrors or implausible numbers’. One section II respondent noted that most registrants spend a lot oftime and resources to get the data right, while another section II respondent states that ‘Thecomparability of the lobby costs is poor. The methodology of how to calculate them is unclear’.

Proposed solutions to the issues identified with data quality include:

Section III: ‘A minimum of 5% of declarations should be thoroughly checked each year’ or ‘atleast a fifth of the entries must be systematically checked every year’. To do this, three section IIIrespondents suggest that ‘An adequately staffed secretariat should be put in place in order toensure all necessary checks and in order to follow up complaints’

Section VI: ‘Proper monitoring and enforcement could ensure compliance, as well as deter anddetect breaches’; and ‘It would be useful to have more guidance on how to fill in the section onfinancial data. It is not always clear which figures have to be included’.

Section X: ‘more resources need to be provided to the EU transparency register secretariat, sothat they are better able to check the registrations, and to investigate alerts and complaints andenforce sanctions where applicable’.


A total of 7 of the responses are included in the sample. The table overleaf summarises the keythemes that have been extracted from these responses.


Table 6-16: Themes in response to QB2.4; n=7 (By language: DE=1, EN=5, FR=1)



Most registrants spend alot of time and resourcesto get the data right

1 No incentive to maintaindata

1 EU transparency Registersecretariat needs to beadequately staffed toundertake checks

2

Data quality differs greatlybetween organisations onthe Register

1 A minimum number ofentries must be checkedeach year

2

Limited monitoring and lackof sanctions mean dataquality is poor

1 A proper monitoring systemfor registrations is needed

2

No info about activities 1

Data about money andpeople allocated tolobbying is often wrong

1


Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (106) and German (31)using NVivo. These words were checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see ifthere were any ‘new’ words. A review of the word ‘mitgliedsbeiträgen’ (member contributions)revealed several very similar responses from major German companies with the common themethat membership contributions from individual companies to associations should only be publishedwhen such contributions were a significant source of funding for the association (interpreted fromthe German).

Further brief manual inspection of comments from responses in French (15) did not reveal any newthemes.

6.4 Code of conduct and procedure for alerts and complaints (QnsB3.1, B3.2a, B3.2b)

Overview6.4.1

The Code of Conduct sets out the rules for all those who register and establishes the underlyingprinciples for standards of behaviour in all relations with the EU institutions (Annex III of theInterinstitutional Agreement). Anyone may trigger an alert or make a complaint about possiblebreaches of the Code of Conduct. Alerts concern factual errors and complaints relate to moreserious breaches of behavioural nature (Annex IV of the Interinstitutional Agreement).


Respondents were asked to consider the following:

the Code is based on a sound set of rules and principles (Qn B3.1) the present procedure for dealing with alerts and complaints is adequate (Qn B3.2a) do you think that the names of organisations that are suspended under the alerts and

complaints should be made public? (Qn B3.2b)

Table 6-17: Views on data disclosure and quality by respondent group

(Note that responses of ‘no opinion’ have not been presented in this table)

Statement being considered:


(n = 484)


(n = 22)

Individuals

(n=245)

The Code is based on a sound set ofrules and principles (Qn B3.1)

76% fully agree

14% partially agree

1% disagree

55% fully agree

23% partially agree

9% disagree

36% fully agree

35% partially agree

10% disagree

The present procedure for dealing withalerts and complaints is adequate (QnB3.2a)

33% fully agree

20% partially agree

8% disagree

32% fully agree

23% partially agree

18% disagree

31% fully agree

30% partially agree

10% disagree

Do you think that the names oforganisations that are suspendedunder the alerts and complaints shouldbe made public? (Qn B3.2b)

58% yes

25% no

59% yes

23% no

85% yes

8% no

Note: Since responses of ‘no opinion’ have not been included, the % figures for each statement add up to lessthan 100%

While there is general support for the existing code and procedure for dealing with alerts andcomplaints, there is strong support for publishing names of suspended organisations (particularlyamongst individual respondents).

Further analysis of the results for registered organisations indicated that there was some oppositionto such publication amongst all sections of the Register with least opposition from Section IIIorganisations (non-governmental organisations, etc.).

Views on the Code of Conduct (Qn B3.1)6.4.2

Summary




There were 8 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A total of7 of the responses are included in the sample. A further two responses have been added from theother organisations. The table overleaf summarises the key themes that have been extracted fromthese responses.




Issue By type Issue By type Solution By type

Code of Conduct isappropriate

III (1)V (1)

Enforcement of theCode is not appropriate

III (1) Need to strengthenobligations of lobbyiststo respond to requestsfor corrections of theirentries

X (1)

The obligation tosubscribe in theTransparency Registershould be more firmlyincluded

X (1)

Effective use should bemade of sanctions

II (1)III (1)

Need to includestricter provisions ontransparency abouthiring of ex-officials

X (2)

Definition of'inappropriatebehaviour' needs to beclarified

II (1)III (1)X (1)

Code of Conduct forMEPs and EU officialsneed to include morerobust transparencyobligations

X (1)

Should prohibitrepresentation byprivate firms ofregimes in breach ofhuman rights

III (1)

Should prohibitrepresentation byprivate firms of thetobacco industry

III (1)


Two respondents (one III, one V) consider the Code of Conduct to be appropriate, although thesection III respondent adds that ‘What is not adequate at the moment is the enforcement of theCode’. One section X respondent notes that ‘recent Heads of Unit…leaving the EU…for the privatesector…the Commission [should] reflect on how it can further tackle this very difficult challenge, toensure no conflicts of interest occur’.

In terms of suggested revisions to the code, there are three respondents (one II, one III and one X)who would like to see the clarification of the definition of ‘inappropriate behaviour’. One section IIrespondent suggests this should ‘be remedied, perhaps along the lines of the European Parliament'sdecision of April 2014 on the modification of the interinstitutional agreement on the TransparencyRegister’. They add further that ‘If…rules are broken by an organisation that hires a former EUofficial…suspension from the Register should be an option’.


One section III respondent noted that ‘we want all lobbyists to register’ and so suggested a changeto the first paragraph of the Code of Conduct whereby the ‘sentence "registered or not" should beeliminated, as we want all lobbyists to register’.

Both of the other organisations comment specifically on the Code of Conduct, with a section VIrespondent noting that they have ‘formulated a set of additional, specific principles and guidelinesfor its lobbying activities’ and the section III respondent suggesting that ‘it might be envisaged toinvite any entity joining the Register to voluntary warrant and represent that to its best knowledge itcomplies with the law of the country/ies where it acts’.


A total of seven of the responses are included in the sample as summarised below.

Table 6-19: Themes in response to Q3.1; n=7 (By language: DE=3 EN=3, IT=1)



Effective use should be made ofsanctions

1

Code of Conduct for MEPs andEU officials need to include morerobust transparency obligations

1

Too much room forinterpretation

4

Meetings between MEPs andlobbyists should be audiblyrecorded and made public (seecommentary)

1


Four of the seven respondents indicated concerns about the room for interpretation in the Code ofConduct and the words “fudge”, “lax” and “not controllable” are used.

One respondent has views on the recording of meetings: ‘I fully agree with the principles andstandards of behaviour established in the Code though to me there is too much margin forinterpretation. I mean, which is the border between pressure and information? Obviously it'simpossible to objectively regulate this issue and the potential violations of the Code of Conduct haveto be judged case by case. […] A possible measure to help the judging procedure it would be theaudio recording of all the meetings the MEP's have with the entities, which are willing to expose theirarguments in tense contexts.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (51). These wordswere checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words. Areview of the acronym ‘JTRS’ (the secretariat) revealed several identical responses from differentoffices of Transparency International (registered section III organisation) covering the themeidentified above: Effective use should be made of sanctions.


Views on procedures for complaints and alerts (Qn B3.2a)6.4.3

Summary

There were 103 responses from organisations to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 12 of the responses are included in the sample. There were 26 responses from individualsto the open-text box associated with this question. A total of 7 of the responses are included in thesample.


There were 11 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof nine of the responses are included in the sample. A further three responses are added from theother organisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted..

Table 6-20: Themes in response to QB3.2a; n=12 (By section: I = 0, II = 2, III = 7, IV = 0, V = 0, VI = 0, X = 3)


Issue By type Issue By type Solution By type

Complaints and alertsmake a valuablecontribution toeffectiveimplementation of theRegister

X (1) There are insufficientresources to deal withcomplaints or to makesufficient checks

II (1)III (4)X (1)

Greater transparency isallowing the public tosee and ask questionsabout who theCommission meets with

X (1) Greater emphasis isneeded on checkingdata quality

III (1)X (1)

There is a need formore systematicchecks and verification

III (1)

Should rely less onexternal complaints andmore on internal checks

III (1 + 1org)

More automaticchecking is required atmoment ofregistration

III (1)X (1)

The due process shouldbe strengthened

II (1) An independent bodyis needed to Registerand administersanctions

II (1)III (2)

The process for removalfrom the Register mustbe clear andtransparent

II (1) Sanctions such assuspending passesshould be included

III (1)

Actions must be takenagainst organisationssubmitting inaccurateregister entries toimprove confidence inthe system

III (1) There should be publictransparency aboutsanctions and howsystem is enforced

III (1)X (1)

Unregistered lobbyistsshould not be able toattend hearings orevents

X (1)



Six of the respondents (one II, four III, one X) agree that the current level of resources is insufficientto deal with complaints or make the required checks. One section III respondent highlighted that‘The secretariat for the current (voluntary) EU lobby register…is staffed by only a handful of people(ratio: 1 staff member per 3653 registrants)’. They compare this with the case in Canada wherethere is a ‘ratio: 1 staff member per 95 registrants’. A section VI respondent from the otherorganisations suggests that ‘It must be possible to clearly distinguish between factual errors and themost serious violations of behaviour’.

Three respondents (one II, two III) consider that an independent body is needed to register andadminister sanctions. One section III respondents identifies that the ‘High Authority forTransparency in Public Life in France could serve as a model for the EU transparency regime’.Another section III respondent states that ‘only an independent body, with a clear mandate andappeal procedure set in place, would be in position to legitimately rule on alleged infringements tothe Transparency Register’.

In terms of the sanctions, one section II respondent notes that ‘Submitting inaccurate and / ormisleading information must be specified as a punishable offence…Suspended lobby groups shouldbe placed on a public blacklist and should be suspended from expert groups and lose access to theCommission and Parliament’. One section II respondent identifies that ‘Suspension from theCommission Register has attracted negative publicity and reputational damage to those affected’and that this means that the ‘process of removal from the Register must be clear and transparent’.They then feel that ‘Credibility would be improved with an independent complaint body’.


A total of 7 of the responses are included in the sample. The table below summarises the keythemes that have been extracted from these responses.

Table 6-21: Themes in response to QB3.2a; n=7 (By language: DE=1, EN=3, FR=1, NL=1, PT=1)



Complaints and alerts makea valuable contribution toeffective implementation ofthe Register

1 There are insufficientresources to deal withcomplaints or to makesufficient checks

1

The due process should bestrengthened

1 Organisations themselvesshould check compliance

1

Anonymous complaints areunacceptable: complainantand accused must beprotected from unjustifiedattack

1 Organisations providingmisleading information shouldbe penalised heavily: noaccess and public shaming(see commentary)

2

Detailed definition of alertand complaint required

1

Specific question about theCode of Conduct, (seecommentary)

1



One respondent explains their reasons why the penalties for misleading information should besevere: ‘Actually, only the lobbyist or the parliamentarian or EU Administrator submit a report and /or complaint. Others may have no knowledge of the content of the advice of the lobbyist. Reportsand / or complaints will take place normally only after the decision, because then becomes clearwhat the content advisory. And then it's too late. Effects with incorrect information must be stronglypunished. For example, by refusing access to the EU buildings, but also by naming and shaming theperpetrator’ (translated from Dutch).

Another respondent has a specific question about the Code of Conduct: ‘I think the procedure is fine.There's just one thing I don't understand and it is about the measures available in the event of non-compliance with the code of conduct. I don't understand why, in Type of non-compliance number 2(Non-cooperation with JTRS) the measure says: "Removal from the register, de-activation of theauthorisation for access to European Parliament premises and loss of other incentives" but the"Formal decision to withdraw access to European Parliament premises" says: "NO". Shouldn't that bea YES?

And in the number 3 case: "Inappropriate behaviour", it's exactly the same, I think this type of non-compliance is referring to entities who have had a wrong behaviour and so the measure says"Removal from the register, de-activation of the authorisation for access to European Parliamentpremises and loss of other incentives" but the "Formal decision to withdraw access to EuropeanParliament premises" says: NO. How is that? Is that a mistake or it is me who is not understanding? Ithink the withdrawal of the European Parliament Access premises should be automatically applied.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (80) and German (31).These words were checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any‘new’ words. A review of the word ‘einklang’ (accordance) revealed several very similar responsesfrom major German companies with the common theme that ‘more efforts are required to ensurethat all stakeholders comply in providing register entries in accordance with the guidelines. Withoutsuch compliance, such stakeholders should not claim the moral high ground when criticising correctlyregistered organisations’ (interpreted from the German).

Views on publishing names of suspended organisations (Qn B3.2b)6.4.4

Summary




There were 11 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 10 responses are included in the sample. A further four responses have been added from theother organisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted fromthese responses.


Table 6-22: Themes in response to QB3.2b; n=14 (By section: I = 0, II = 5, III = 6, IV = 0, V = 0, VI = 2, X = 1)



Only by making it publiccan the system bechecked to see if it isworking

X (1) There would need to bea proper process inplace

II (1)VI (1 org)

Any sanctioningsystem should includesafeguards againstsimple re-registration

X (1)

Making it public wouldbe an importantincentive to provideaccurate information

II (1)III (2)

This could only be donewhen the allegedinfraction is proved andappeal routes areexhausted

II (1 + 1org)

III (1 org)V (1)

VI (1 org)

Use of an independentbody is an opportunityto strengthen theTransparency Register

III (1)

Would provideimportant informationuntil a legally bindingregister comes intoforce

III (1) No because alerts canbe the result of minormistakes

II (1)


* III (1), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section III organisation (1) while VI (1 org)represents the views of a Section VI organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Four22 of respondents (one II, two III, one X) provide positive comments to this question, agreeingthat the names of organisations that are suspended should be made public. One section IIrespondent comments that ‘this is absolutely crucial as the threat of bad publicity from suspensionshould act as a further incentive to keep registrations and data up to date’. One section Vrespondent states that ‘Suspension before a final decision should never be made public’ but addsthat ‘Suspension resulting from a final decision could at most be made public when the gravity makessuch publication indispensable in the public interest’.

Another section II respondent though highlights that ‘sometimes alerts are the result of minormistakes’ so names should not be published. Five respondents (one II, one VI from Tier 1 and oneII, one III and one VI from the other organisations) agree with making the names public but only‘when the alleged infraction is proved and the appeal routes are exhausted’ and ‘with the reservationthat there is a proper process in place’. One section III respondent from the other organisations addsthat ‘The current approach provides an appropriate balance, allowing the public to understand whichorganisations are genuinely not complying but protecting the reputation of those whose non-compliance is temporary and not serious’.



22The responses from one of the section III respondents covers two of the themes


Table 6-23: Themes in response to QB3.2b; n=8 (By language: DE=2, EN=5, NL=1)



Only by making it public canthe system be checked tosee if it is working

5

Making it public would be animportant incentive toprovide accurateinformation

2 This could only be done whenthe alleged infraction isproved and appeal routes areexhausted

1 Unjustified whistleblowingshould be made public too

1

Sanctions must reflect theseriousness of the violation

1


All of respondents support making public the names of suspended organisations.

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (118) and German(33). These words were checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there wereany ‘new’ words. A review of the word ‘vorübergehenden’ (temporary) revealed several very similarresponses from major German companies who view temporary exclusion (suspension) as a harshpunishment since, de facto, it limits interaction with EU institutions and publication would havefurther damaging effects. As such, they ask that ‘the name of a suspended organisation should notbe published without giving the organisation the opportunity to correct the error (which could be asimple mistake)’ (translated from the German).

6.5 Register website – registration and updating (Qn B4.1)

Overview6.5.1

Respondents were asked about the ease of using the Register website. Although most registeredorganisations indicated that the processes were straightforward, more than a third thought theywere ‘satisfactory but can be improved’. Similar figures emerged from the other main stakeholdergroups as illustrated in the table below.

Table 6-24: Views on user-friendliness of the Register website

in relation to…


(n = 484)


(n = 22)

Individuals

(n=245)

Registration process

59% straightforward

33% satisfactory

5% cumbersome

32% straightforward

32% satisfactory

0% cumbersome

31% straightforward

29% satisfactory

5% cumbersome

Updating process

(annual & partial)

55% straightforward

37% satisfactory

4% cumbersome

32% straightforward

32% satisfactory

0% cumbersome

24% straightforward

30% satisfactory

10% cumbersome

Note: responses of ‘no opinion’ have not been presented in this table


Further analysis indicated that views were fairly evenly distributed across the sections of theRegister as illustrated below.

Figure 6-3: Qn B4.1: How user-friendly is in your opinion the Register website in relation to registration?(Responses from registered organisations by section of the Register)

Views on user-friendliness of the Register website (Qn B4.1)6.5.2

Summary

There were 96 responses from organisations to the open-text box associated with this question. Atotal of 12 of the responses are included in the sample. There were 14 responses from individuals tothe open-text box associated with this question. A total of 6 of the responses are included in thesample.


There were 8 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. All 8 ofthe responses are included in the sample. A further four responses have been added from otherorganisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted from theseresponses.




Registration andupdating process is notoverly cumbersome

X (1) The updating processrequires considerableeffort

III (2 org)VI (1 org)

More regular updatescould be provided

III (2)X (1)

Essential toautomatize thechecking ofregistrations

III (3)X (1)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I: Professional consultancies etc(n=53)

II: In-house lobbyists andassociations (n=279)

III: Non-governmental organisations,etc (n=109)


V: Organisations representingchurches etc (n=5)

VI: Sub-national authorities (n=19)

Straightforward

Satisfactory

Cumbersome

No opinion





Currently updates arediscouraged other thanan annual full update

III (1) There should be a firstcheck before an entrybecomes public

III (1)

Unstable IT system canrequire the updatingprocess to be repeatedseveral times

II (1) Updates should bemade to commondates to improvecomparability

III (1)

Some informationrequested is unclear

III (1) Links to expert groupsand other EUStructures and fundingwould make it easierfor registrants

II (1)III (1)X (1)

There is no way ofproviding an update interms of compliancewith the Code ofConduct

III (1 org) Drop-down menusshould be usedwhenever possible

III (1)

There is very littleguidance

III (1)V (1)

Additional guidance isneeded

III (1)V (1)

Suspect that manymistakes are accidental

III (2) More detailedheadings forexpenditure couldmake it easier tocalculate what is beingspent

III (2 org)VI (1 org)

X (1)

Contributions shouldonly be released whenmore than 30% of theassociations activitiesfall within the scope ofthe Register

III (1 org)

Idea and layout canbecome cumbersomewhere it does not work

II (1)



One respondent (section X) comments that the registration and updating process is not overlycumbersome. They also suggest that this could be improved ‘to include more regular updates of theinformation, for example, twice a year’. Other respondents also suggest an increase in the numberof annual updates with two section III respondents also commenting that this should be undertakenat least twice per year. They also suggest that ‘the register would be far more effective and precise ifall registrants were required to submit at least two updates per year, and on shared dates i.e. 31January and 31 July’. Three of the other organisations (two III, one VI), however, comment that theupdating process requires considerable effort.

Further comments (three III, one X) are made on the need for automatic checking of data as they areentered by registrants to help warn about errors as the update is underway. One section III


respondent suggests that ‘the introduction of additional smart online measures such as basicplausibility checks, drop-down menus and in-built checklists of basic requirements could improveuser-friendliness and ensure the accuracy of registrations’. One section II respondent though notesthat the IT system is unstable resulting in the need to ‘to repeat the updating process several times’.

Two Tier 1 respondents (one III, one V) suggests that additional guidance is needed, and this thiscould take the form of a ‘specific leaflet presenting the Register and the information required,“workshop”, email address/phone number where registered organization can submit questions’.Three of the other organisations (two III, one VI) comment on difficulties with the calculation ofmembership fees and that this information should only be released where ‘individualmembers…contribute to a predominantly high share...[of]…the association's activities…within ascope of the Transparency Register’.


There were 14 responses from individuals to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 6 of the responses are included in the sample. The table below summarises the key themes thathave been extracted from these responses.




Registration and updatingprocess is not overlycumbersome

1 More regular updates couldbe provided

1

Cumbersome registration andupdates unfairly favourorganisations with bigresources.

1 Any updates should requireconfirmation of all data

1


Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (69). These wordswere checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words.No new words were identified.

6.6 Current advantages linked to registration (Qn B5.1)

Overview6.6.1

The European Parliament and the European Commission currently offer certain practical advantages(incentives) linked to being on the Register. The Commission has also announced its intention tosoon amend its rules on expert groups to link membership to registration.

Respondents were invited to comment which of these advantages were considered important.Although individuals and unregistered organisations responded along similar lines to registeredorganisations, particular attention is given this last group.


Table 6-27: Views on importance of advantages granted to registered organisations by number ofresponses from registered organisations

Advantage granted to registered organisations

Veryimportant

Somewhatimportant

Not important/ No opinion

Score*

(Rank)


Access to Parliament buildings: long-term accesspasses to the EP’s premises are only issued toindividuals representing, or working for registeredorganisations

373 76 35 822 (1)

Committee public hearings: guests invited to speakat a hearing need to be registered

331 107 46 769 (2)

Patronage: Parliament does not grant its patronageto relevant organisations that are not registered

311 91 82 713 (3)


Meetings: organisations or self-employed individualsengaged in relevant activities must be registered inorder to hold meetings with Commissioners, Cabinetmembers and Directors-General

397 68 19 862 (1)

Expert groups: registration in the TransparencyRegister is required in order for members to beappointed (refers to organisations and individualsappointed to represent a common interest sharedby stakeholders in a particular policy area)

386 72 26 844 (2)

Public consultations: the Commission sendsautomatic alerts to registered entities aboutconsultations in areas of interest indicated by them;it differentiates between registered and non-registered entities when publishing the results

368 87 29 823 (3)

Patronage: Commissioners do not grant theirpatronage to relevant organisations that are notregistered

308 101 75 717 (4)

Mailing lists: organisations featuring on any mailinglists set up to alert them about certain Commissionactivities are asked to register

281 146 57 708 (5)

*Note that score based on a simple rating scale: Very important = 2, Somewhat important = 1, Not important/No opinion= 0 multiplied by the number of responses

In relation to the European Parliament, the most important advantage was considered to beassociated with the need to be registered in order to gain access to Parliament buildings.

In relation to the Commission, the most important advantage was considered to be associated withthe need to be registered in order to hold meetings with Commissioners, Cabinet members andDirectors-General. The second most important advantage was seen as the ability to be appointed toexpert groups.

Views on advantages6.6.2

Summary





There were 11 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 8 of the responses are included in the sample. A further four responses are added from the otherorganisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted from theseresponses.




Register could beproactively used if thedata quality was better

III (1) Activation of badgesevery day for accesscause administrativeburden

III (1)VI (1 org)

Limitation of fourpeople per organisationper day is problematic

II (1) A more flexibleapproach is neededbased on prorata bynumber of passes anorganisation has

II (1)

Incentives aredisincentives for notregistering and are notappropriate

II (1) Incentives to registershould be made soattractive that removalfrom the Register isthe only sanction thatmatters

X (1)

Restrictions imposed onnon-registered lobbyistsshould only apply toactivities falling withinthe scope of theRegister

V (1)

The quality and detail ofcommunications toregistrants regardingpublic consultationsneeds to be improved

II (1 org)V (2)

Communicationsshould feature the titleof the consultation anda direct link to therelevant webpage

V (2)

The recording relatedbenefits should notundermine thelegitimate operation ofan institution

III (1 org) An EU 'transparencylabel' could beconsidered

V (1)

There should be anexemption for localgovernments

V (1)


* II (1), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section II organisation (1) while II (1 org)represents the views of a Section II organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents


One section III respondent notes that the Register could be used proactively if the data quality wasbetter adding ‘instead of just checking if representatives of an expert group is on the register, to useproactively the data to select additional participants from NGOs’.

One section II respondent commented that incentives are disincentives for not registering and arenot appropriate. They further highlighted that ‘The objective of forcing entities whose activities fallwithin the scope of the TR to register should result from a proper legal framework and not fromunilateral decisions from the EU institutions that, without legal basis, deny rights to some entitieswhich others enjoy’. Conversely, one section X respondent identifies that ‘the incentives to registershould be made so attractive that the only sanction that matters is to be suspended or removed fromthe Transparency Register’.

There were also comments on the quality and detail of communications to registrants regardingpublic consultations needing to be improved from two section V respondents. They stated that‘such communications should not only feature the title of the specific consultation and a direct link tothe relevant webpage, but also provide a clear added value and edge to registered entities over non-registered ones’. They also suggested examples of added value where these include ‘e.g.information on the contact person(s) responsible for the dossier within the Commission services;advance indications of intermediate possibilities of ad hoc meetings, hearings, further targetedconsultations, testing sessions; provision of additional materials, documentation and informationthat is not accessible to non-registered entities’.

In addition to the comments on the incentives there was also one comment from a section IIrespondent on the questionnaire itself, specifically that ‘The above categories do not allow forticking boxes of disagreement’.


A total of 7 of the responses are included in the sample. The table below summarises the key themesthat have been extracted from these responses.

Table 6-29: Themes in response to QB5.1; n=7 (By language: EN=4, FR=2, IT=1)



Expert groups and meetings forregistered organisations only

1

European Parliament access forregistered organisations only

1

Public consultation access forregistered and non-registeredentities

1

All benefits are importantand should be linked topresence on the Register

2 Issue with the phrase“patronage” (seecommentary)

1

All Commission/ /Councilofficials & MEPs should onlymeet registered organisations

2

Mailing list is poor 1

Need to control the accessof interest groups

1



One respondent echoes several views: ‘More lobbying is involved in policy development, and it isimportant that it be registered. Therefore, it is essential that the participation in expert groups ormeetings of the Commission is reserved for listed entities. Regarding access to the EuropeanParliament, it is a great way to encourage lobbyists to register - no lobbyist wants to lose access toMEPs' offices. Sponsorship and public hearings are important steps, since they are of a symbolicaspect.

Public consultations should remain open to non-listed entities, whenever: 1) there is no guaranteethat its answers will be taken into account; 2) where established organizations outside Brussels, butvery specialized in one area, may want to address a very ad hoc consultation. It would make no senseto require these entities to register if they are only involved in a consultation every two years, andhave no office in Brussels’ (translated from French).

One respondent has a specific issue with the word “patronage”: ‘No patronage should ever be givento any organisation by EU Commissioners. Assuming here that we are talking about financialpatronage or political patronage. All patronage in its every form is poison and corrupts thelegitimacy of the participants. Nepotism, Cronyism, Embezzlement, Favouritism and every otherword comes to mind as a synonym with the word "patronage". However if the patronage is limitedto "Moral Support" and use of the EU Logo according to the European Parliament website then I seeless of a problem. I would also suggest the use of a different word.’

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (78). These wordswere checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words. Areview of the word ‘health’ revealed several identical answers from registered section IIIorganisations calling for the mandatory registration in the Transparency Register to be required fororganisations’ and bodies’ participation in stakeholder forums (such as the EU Alcohol and HealthForum). These responses went further by calling for: ‘recordings of meetings directly with theEuropean Commission should be extended to all levels of officials, such as Head of Units, Advisorsand Policy Officers. The information should be made easily available for the public.’

These views were re-presented for the next question (Qn B6.1 – see below).

6.7 Features of a future mandatory system (Qns B6.1, B6.2)

Overview6.7.1

There was general support for further interactions between the EU institutions and interest groupsto be conditional upon prior registration and strong support for the Commission's view that theCouncil of the EU should participate in the new Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatoryregister.

Summaries of the responses are illustrated overleaf.


Figure 6-4: Qn B6.1: Do you believe that there are further interactions between the EU institutions andinterest groups that could be made conditional upon prior registration (e. g. access to MEPs and EU officials,events, premises, or featuring on specific mailing lists)?

Figure 6-5: Qn B6.2: Do you agree with the Commission's view that the Council of the EU should participatein the new Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory register?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Registered (n=484)

Individual (n=245)

Unregistered (n=22)

Yes

No

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Registered (n=484)

Unregistered (n=22)

Individual (n=245)

Yes

No

No opinion


Views on access being conditional on registration (Qn B6.1)6.7.2

Summary




There were 13 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 10 of the responses are included in the sample. Three additional responses have also beenincluded from the other organisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have beenextracted from these responses.

Table 6-30: Themes in response to QB6-1; n=13 (By section: I = 0, II = 1, III = 5, IV = 0, V = 2, VI = 2, X = 3)



More might be doneto ensure that otherparts of the EUadministration rely onthe TransparencyRegister

X (1) Council and EuropeanCouncil should join theRegister and look forincentives for lobbyiststo register

V (1)X (1)

Registration should bea requirement foraccess

III (1)VI (1 org)

X (2)

Institutions shouldcheck whether visitorsentering premises fallwithin the scope of theTransparency Register

X (1)

Officials should notattend events organisedby non-registeredlobbyists

III (1)VI (1 org)

X (1)

Commission,Parliament andCouncil should make itdifficult for a lobbyistto influence decision-making withoutsigning up to theRegister

III (1)X (1)

The EC's policy of notmeeting unregisteredlobbyists should beextended to cover allCommission officialsinvolved in EUlegislation

III (1)X (3)

Members of theEuropean Parliamentshould list theirinteractions with lobbygroups

III (1)VI (1 org)

X (1)

A future mandatoryregister should notimpose undueadministrative burdenon registrants

II (1)V (2)

A mandatory registerthat is legally binding isrequired

III (2)


Table 6-30: Themes in response to QB6-1; n=13 (By section: I = 0, II = 1, III = 5, IV = 0, V = 2, VI = 2, X = 3)



An extensive anddetailed record ofmeetings and contactswould have drawbacks

V (1) Meetings with lobbyistsshould be published

III (1)VI (1 org)

X (1)

Current transparencyprovisions should beextended down to Headof Unit level

III (1)X (1)

Existing measuresneed to be reviewedand new onesconsidered

III (1) Organisations with badentries should betemporarily suspended

III (1)

Grave or repeatoffences should resultin a ban from theRegister

III (1)

Mandatory system isonly viable if itrespects and fits thenature of actors andorganisationsconcerned

V (1) Any restriction must bejustified andproportionate to theintended objective

II (1)

Restrictions oninteractions of EUinstitutions on EUmatters that are thecompetence ofnational/ regional/local authorities iscontrary to Article 4TEU

VI (1) Direct access bydemocratically electedgovernments should beencouraged, not linkedto registration

III (1 org)VI (1)



A variety of suggestions is made regarding interactions between the EU institutions and interestgroups that could be made conditional upon prior registration. Four respondents (one III, two Xfrom Tier 1 and one VI from the other organisations) think that registration should be a requirementfor access to ‘Commission expert groups and advisory groups or European Parliament intergroupsand other cross-party groups’. One section X respondent suggests that ‘obligations…to only meetwith representatives of registered entities and that details of those meetings shall be publishedonline…to extend downwards to Directors and Heads of Units’.

There are also suggestions from two Tier 1 respondents (one V, one X) that the Council andEuropean Council should join the Register and look for incentives for lobbyists to register. Bothmake suggestions as to what these incentives should be, whereby unregistered lobbyists should not:


have access to Parliament/Commission premises; be able to get lobby meetings, or participate in expert groups, advisory groups or market access

groups; advise the Parliament as part of intergroups, parliamentary hearings or in any other advisory

function; advise the Commission as part of high-level groups, consultative committees, expert groups and

other consultative bodies; and be able to organise events at the European Parliament or the Commission.

There were comments requesting that meetings with lobbyists should be published (two section IIIrespondents plus one section VI from the other organisations) but also that an extensive anddetailed record of meetings and contacts would have drawbacks (one section V respondent). Thesection III respondent added ‘When publishing the subject of meetings, information should includereference to the concrete legislative procedure…For the European Parliament president, vice-presidents, group presidents, committee chairs and rapporteurs publishing their meetings should bemandatory. Other MEPs should publish their meetings on a voluntary basis’. The section Vrespondent added that the drawbacks would be ‘bureaucratisation…and for the possible negativeimpact on the healthiness of the policy- and decision-making process’.



Table 6-31: Themes in response to QB6-1; n=8 (By language: DE=1, EN=2, FR=5)



Yes, to any measures thatencourage registration

1 Registration should be arequirement for access

1 Institutions should checkwhether visitors enteringpremises fall within thescope of the TransparencyRegister

1

Officials should not attendevents organised by non-registered lobbyists

1

The EC's policy of notmeeting unregisteredlobbyists should beextended to cover allCommission officialsinvolved in EU legislation

1

Members of the EuropeanParliament should list theirinteractions with lobbygroups

2

Meetings with lobbyistsshould be published

2

Mailing lists should be forall, registered and non-registered

1



One respondent explains why all appointments should be publically available: ‘appointments ofofficials and MPs should be public in order to obtain a "legislative footprint" for each text’.

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (106). These wordswere checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words.No new words were identified.

Views on Council participation (Qn B6.2)6.7.3

Summary




There were 11 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. Eight ofthe responses are included in the sample. A further three responses have been added from otherorganisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted from theseresponses.




Council is falling behindcompared with otherinstitutions and someMember States

X (1) Council should becomea full member of theTransparency Register

II (2)III (3 + 1

org)X (3)

Subject to theparticularities of theCouncil

VI (1 org) European Council,Council of the EU andpermanentrepresentations shouldbe included

II (1)III (3 + 1

org)

Council participationshould be restricted toEU officials

X (1)

Unregistered lobbyistsshould not be able toget to meetings

III (1) There needs to be alegally binding register

III (1)

The register should berevised and a legally-binding system set upeven without theCouncil

III (1)

Transparency has to beensured throughout thewhole decision-makingprocess

III (1) Council should publishmeetings as does theEC

III (1)





All written input bylobbyists should bepublished in a centrallocation

III (1)


* III (3 + 1 org), for example, represents the views from three Tier 1 Section III organisation (3) and the viewsof a Section III organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Nine respondents (two II, three III, three X from Tier 1 plus one III from the other organisations) feelthat the Council should become a full member of the Transparency Register. Of these, fourrespondents (one II, three III from Tier 1 and one section III from the other organisations) suggestedthat this should cover the European Council, Council of the EU and permanent representations withone adding ‘this would ideally mean that capitals and Permanent representations would be included,not only the Council secretariat, and we do realize the political implications of such a step’. Onesection X respondent felt that Council participation should be restricted to EU officials, specifying‘the staff of the President of the European Council and the secretariat of the Council of Ministers’.One other organisation (section III) added that this should be ‘Subject to respecting theparticularities of the Council’.

There was again comment that unregistered lobbyists should not be able to gain access to meetings(one section III respondent) who added ‘Permanent Representations of member states should alsopledge to no longer meet with unregistered lobbyists. The rotating presidency should also not havecontact with unregistered lobbyists – both in Brussels and “at home”’.


A total of 7 of the responses are included in the sample. The table below summarises the key themesthat have been extracted from these responses.




Council is falling behindcompared with otherinstitutions and some MemberStates

1 Council should become a fullmember of the TransparencyRegister

7

European Council, Council ofthe EU and permanentrepresentations should beincluded

2

All respondents stated that the council of the EU should participate.

Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (73). These wordswere checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words.


The word ‘system’ was reviewed and provided a good example of how many respondents see theneed for a unified ‘system’ to integrate transparent lobbying into the democratic process asillustrated in the word tree below.

Figure 6-6: Overview of desire for a unified ‘system’ (based on comments related to Council participation –Qn B6.2)

6.8 Looking beyond Brussels (Qn B7.1)

Overview6.8.1

Respondents were generally supportive of the Register in comparison to ‘lobby registers’ at MemberState level.

Figure 6-7: Qn B7.1: How does the Transparency Register compare overall to 'lobby registers' at the EUMember State level?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Individual (n=245)

Unregistered (n=22)

Registered (n=484)

Better

Worse

Neither

No opinion


Views on MS ‘lobby registers’ (Qn B7.1)6.8.2

Summary




There were 9 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A total of8 of the responses are included in the sample. A further three responses have been added from theother organisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have been extracted fromthese responses.

Table 6-34: Themes in response to QB7.1; n=11 (By section: I = 0, II = 2, III = 5, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 2, X =1)



EU is relativelytransparent but needsto do more

X (1) Better to compare EUinstitutions to USA

III (1)X (1)

The EU register goesfurther in its reportingrequirements thanalmost all nationalregisters

II (1) The US legislationshould continue toconstitute the keyreference point

V (1)

EU should set bestpractice standards toserve as an example forMember States

III (1) Slovenia and Lithuaniaare positive examples

III (1)X (1)

The EU TransparencyRegister is ahead insome areas but lacksbehind in a majority ofelements whencompared withinternational bestpractice

III (1) Potential to learn fromgood and bad practicein EU Member States,but also from othercountries such asCanada

III (3 + 1org)

VI (1)

There are several keyareas in which the EUregister can significantlyimprove

III (1) There is a number ofelements that emergefrom evaluation ofexisting nationalregisters

III (1)

Testing must be doneto identify if a systemthat works well atMember State levelcan be effectivelyapplied at EU level

III (1 org)


Table 6-34: Themes in response to QB7.1; n=11 (By section: I = 0, II = 2, III = 5, IV = 0, V = 1, VI = 2, X =1)



Most Member Stateshave a mandatoryregistration system, butthis does not mean theEU should use amandatory instrument

V (1) Needs to be morecoordination ofnational registers withthe EU one

II (1)

Many Member Statesdo not have anyregistration tool

III (1 org)V (1)

A lobby EU Directivemight be useful

VI (1 org)

The specificity ofvarious entities needs tobe recognised

V (1) The Committee of theRegions registershould be used forregional and localauthority organisations

VI (1)


* V (1), for example, represents the views from one Tier 1 Section V organisation (1) while VI (1 org)represents the views of a Section VI organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

The majority of the comments focus on best practice in other countries, with specific mentions ofthe USA (one III, one X), Canada (three III), Australia (one V), Slovenia and Lithuania (one III, one X),Austria (one VI), Hungary (one VI) and Ireland (one VI). One section III respondent notes that bestpractice seems to comprise of ‘the mandatory dimension of the register, the quality of the datarequired, a sufficiently resourced secretariat to ensure a proper checks in the entries, and follow upcomplaints, the existence of sanctions are all elements that emerge in the evaluation of existingnational registers’. One section V respondent cautions though that ‘The trend existing among theMember States…does not automatically make the EU option for a mandatory instrument advisable.The question of whether mandatory systems introduced at the national level “have worked”, yieldingthe expected results, should be carefully addressed. Contacts with the national responsibleauthorities are in this sense crucial’. One section VI respondent notes that ‘despite being in principlemandatory, [Austria’s] transparency register has so far had little impact’. A section III respondentfrom the other organisations states that ‘differences in EU and Member State level practices arereflections of the nature of activities at those levels. Any adaptions to the Transparency Registerbased upon Member State actions must be done only after testing whether a system which works atnational level can effectively be applied at EU level’.

One section III respondent notes that although ‘A positive example is Slovenia, where definitions ofboth lobbying and lobbied targets are fairly broad…the latter fails to include employees of state- andmunicipal owned companies and external advisors when legislation is outsourced’.

A section X respondent notes that ‘both [Slovenia and Lithuania] have an independent oversightagency equipped with strong investigative powers. Their national lobby regulations include sanctionsto deter and punish organisations that do not comply with their transparency obligations’.

One section III respondent reports on best practice in Canada stating ‘Canada has a mandatory lobbyregister with an independent authority overseeing it…The Commissioner of Lobbying…providespersonalised advice to registrants…and approves registrations only when it is satisfied that


registrations are accurate and complete and registrants have certified the accuracy of theirregistrations’.

In terms of sanctions, one section III respondent notes that in Canada ‘In case of violations (non-registration mostly) there are financial sanctions, public naming-and-shaming and in severe caseseven convictions in court that can lead to imprisonment’.

Searching for information is also reported as being much easier in Canada, with one section IIIrespondent noting that ‘The information that is published is not too dissimilar to the reportspublished by the European…but everything is available on a central website in open data (machinereadable) format that has a great search function and must be updated monthly’.

One section V respondent provides detailed comments on the definition of ‘lobbying’ from both theUS and Australia, noting for example that, in Australian legislation, ‘Lobbyist… does not include: a.charitable, religious and other organisations or funds that are endorsed as deductible gift recipients;b. non-profit associations or organisations constituted to represent the interests of their membersthat are not endorsed as deductible gift recipients...’.

One section VI respondent from the other organisations suggests that a ‘lobby EU Directive might beuseful for avoiding the lack of good practices or for a better implementing the lessons learned’.






EU should set best practicestandards to serve as anexample for Member States

1

It is often easier to find infofrom the Register than fromour national register

1 The EU TransparencyRegister is ahead in someareas but lacks behind in amajority of elements whencompared withinternational best practice

2 Potential to learn fromgood and bad practice inEU Member States, butalso from other countriessuch as Canada

1

Law firms should not beexcluded

1

UK parliament is not anexample of good practice

1


One respondent sums up several views: ‘The situation is very diverse in the EU. Some countries havecomprehensive registration systems; others don't have it at all. There should be furtherharmonization, but a strong example should be set at the EU level.’


Further comments

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (85). These wordswere checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words.Although no new words were listed, exploration of the word ‘best’ led to some very detailedresponses from several registered section III organisations including reference to a 2015 report byTransparency International which looked at lobbying in Europe using a range of indicators. Theresponses also note that the ‘seven EU Member States that have specific lobbying regulations(Austria, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and the United Kingdom) have all opted for aregister as the cornerstone of their approach, requiring lobbyist registration and, in most cases, aperiodic reporting of activities’.

6.9 Additional comments

Summary6.9.1

There were 89 responses from organisations which provided additional comments. A total of 11 ofthe responses are included in the sample.

There were 27 responses from individuals which provided additional comments. A total of 7 of theresponses are included in the sample.

Comments from organisations6.9.2

There were 10 Tier 1 responses received to the open-text box associated with this question. A totalof 8 of the responses are included in the sample. A further three comments are added fromresponses by other organisations. The table below summarises the key themes that have beenextracted from these responses.

Table 6-36: Themes in response to Part B Final Comments; n=11 (By section: I = 0, II = 6, III = 3, IV = 0, V = 0,VI = 1, X = 1)



Other EU institutions areencouraged to use theframework created by thenew IIA

X (1) All interinstitutionalagreement preparatorymeetings should beopen to the public andweb-streamed

III (2)

The draft agreement,proposed changes,agendas and minutesshould be availableonline

III (2)

There should not beadditional administrativeburdens on registrants

II (2) The proposal shouldinclude regularevaluation and revisionmechanisms

III (2)

Support a legally bindingmandatory register

II (3)III (1 org)

X (1)

Further strengthening ofthe incentives should beused to me a 'de facto'mandatory register

II (1)


Table 6-36: Themes in response to Part B Final Comments; n=11 (By section: I = 0, II = 6, III = 3, IV = 0, V = 0,VI = 1, X = 1)



There is also a duty on the'lobbied' to act ethicallyand avoid corruption andbias

II (1 org) Discussion needed onelected representativesto obtain formalspeaking rights inParliament

VI (1)

Sanctions need to beimplemented when thecode of conduct isviolated

X (1)

There should be aconnection between theTransparency Registerand the legislativefootprint

X (1)

An outside body shouldbe the arbiter ofcomplaints

III (1 org)

Public consultationsshould focus on opinionsfrom representativeorganisations

II (1 org) The introduction of anassociations hearingshould be considered

II (1 org)


* II (2), for example, represents the views from two Tier 1 Section II organisations (2) while II (1 org)represents the views of a Section II organisation (1 org) in the sample of non-Tier 1 respondents

Five respondents (three II, one III from Tier 1 and one section III from the other organisations) againhighlight the need for a mandatory register. One of the section II respondents adds that ‘we wouldlike to make the register even more “de facto mandatory” through further strengthening theincentives to register’. Two section II respondents state that there should not be additionaladministrative burdens on registrants, with one suggesting that ‘Therefore, we need to ensure that amandatory register is reformed to include:

An effective system that continues to motivate all organisations influencing EU decision-making to sign up to the EU Transparency Register

Coverage of all EU institutions involved in the political decision-making, including the Council

A robust system with better official definitions, monitoring procedures and sanctions thatencourages registrants to provide accurate information’.

One section X respondent identifies the need for a connection between the Transparency Registerand the legislative footprint, noting that ‘Rapporteurs…should be obliged to disclose their meetingswith lobbyists… MEPs should be enabled to disclose their meetings with lobbyists on their personal EPwebsite, linked to the Transparency Register’.

One section VI respondent suggests the need for ‘an open discussion about the possibility for electedrepresentatives of cities to receive formal speaking rights in the European Parliament in areas wherethey are concerned (e.g. urban-related topics)’.


A section III respondent from the other organisations notes that ‘We think that it is not satisfactoryin the future for the JTRS to be judge and party in any future mandatory complaints procedure. Anoutside body would be a wise arbiter with an increased role for the Ombudsman’.

One section II respondent from the other organisations believes that ‘A public consultation shouldprovide interested parties the opportunity to express and show what are the impacts on the groupsthey represent their views. In our view, the introduction of an "Associations hearing" as example inGermany [should] be seriously considered’. They also add that ‘public consultation must not seek toobtain a public opinion. Other instruments, such as the Euro Barometer surveys, are a significantlymore suitable instrument’.

Comments from individuals6.9.3

A total of 7 of the responses are included in the sample. The table below summarises the keythemes that have been extracted from these responses. The themes have been grouped to combinesimilar issues, to highlight positive and negative aspects that have been raised on those issues and todraw in suggested solutions to the negative issues.

Table 6-37: Themes in response to QB8; n=8 (By language: DE=2, EN=5, FR=1) VI = 1)



Disclose lobbyists source offinancial support

1

Low paid are little representedin Europe, Register shouldenable a view on the balance oflabour and capital (seecommentary)

1

Respect the requirements of theEuropean Citizen’s Initiative

1

Current negotiations of freetrade agreements riskundermining all confidence intransparency

1

Lobbying v democracy (seecommentary)

1

US federal lobbying anddisclosure system is worthlooking at

1


Unsurprisingly, there is a diverse set of comments. One respondent is concerned that: ‘The problemis lobbying OR the operation of a democratic Union?’ (Translated from French)

Another comment is: ‘Since low income populations in Europe are not represented by anyone exceptin terms of parliamentary voting (which is also true for entrepreneurs […] (but) they are stillrepresented by a variety of economic units and organizations) - there should exist some kind ofmethod to decide how often interests of labour and of capital respectively are heard in Europeaninstitutions, […] to see how balanced the whole process is in fact!’

On a different matter, one respondent raises: ‘respect the opinion of citizens in ICE (EuropeanCitizens Initiative) without legal quibbles’ (translated from French).


Final comments6.9.4

Word lists (excluding common words) were compiled for responses in English (72). These wordswere checked against those in the themes mentioned above to see if there were any ‘new’ words.Although no new words were listed, examination of the use of the word ‘influence’ provided a usefuloverview of the need and role for a transparency register role as illustrated overleaf.


Figure 6-8: Word tree based on the use of the word ‘influence’ in final comments

Transparency Register StudyRPA | A1-1

ANNEX 1

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

1

Public Consultation on a proposal for a mandatoryTransparency Register

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

Public Consultation on a proposal for a mandatory TransparencyRegister

The European Commission seeks the views of all interested parties on the performance of the currentTransparency Register for organisations and self-employed individuals engaged in EU policy-makingand policy implementation and on its future evolution towards a mandatory scheme covering theEuropean Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission.

QUESTIONNAIRE

*Are you responding as:

An individual in my personal capacityThe representative of an organisation registered in the Transparency RegisterThe representative of an organisation not registered in the Transparency Register

* I am a resident in (only one choice possible):

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicGermanyDenmarkEstoniaGreeceSpainFinlandFranceHungaryCroatiaIreland

Italy

*

*

http://europa.eu/transparency-register/index_en.htm

2

ItalyLithuaniaLuxembourgLatviaMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSwedenSloveniaSlovak RepublicUnited KingdomOther country

*Please provide your Register ID no:

You can register here

*Name of the organisation:

*The organisation's head office is in:

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicGermanyDenmarkEstoniaGreeceSpainFinlandFranceHungaryCroatiaIrelandItalyLithuaniaLuxembourg

Latvia

*

*

*

https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/ri/registering.do?locale=en

3

LatviaMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSwedenSloveniaSlovak RepublicUnited KingdomOther country

* *Your organisation belongs to the following type:

See a descritption of the below categories here

Professional consultanciesLaw-firmsSelf-employed consultantsCompanies and groupsTrade and business associationsTrade unions and professional associationsOther organisations including: event-organising entities (profit or non- profit making);

interest-related media or research oriented entities linked to private profit making interests;ad-hoc coalitions and temporary structures (with profit-making membership)Non-governmental organisations, platforms, networks, ad-hoc coalitions, temporary structures

and other similar organisationsThink tanks and research institutionsAcademic institutionsOrganisations representing churches and religious communitiesRegional structuresOther sub-national public authoritiesTransnational associations and networks of public regional or other sub-national authoritiesOther public or mixed entities, created by law whose purpose is to act in the public interest

*Other profile

Contact for this public consultation:

*Name

*Surname

*

*

*

*

https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/ri/registering.do?locale=en

4

*Email address

This information will not be published:

A. GENERAL PART (7 questions)

1. Transparency and the EU

1.1 The EU institutions interact with a wide range of groups and organisations representing specificinterests. This is a legitimate and necessary part of the decision-making process to make sure thatEU policies reflect the interests of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders. The decision-makingprocess must be transparent to allow for proper scrutiny and to ensure that the Union's institutionsare accountable.

*a) Do you agree that ethical and transparent lobbying helps policy development?

Fully agreePartially agreeDisagreeNo opinion

Comments or suggestions (Optional)

3000 character(s) maximum

*b) It is often said that achieving appropriate lobbying regulation is not just about transparency, i.e.shedding light on the way in which lobbyists and policy-makers are operating. Which of the belowother principles do you also consider important for achieving a sound framework for relations withinterest representatives?

More than one answer possible

IntegrityEquality of accessOther (please elaborate in the comments box below)No opinion



*

*

*

5

*c) In your opinion, how transparent are the European institutions as public institutions?

They are highly transparentThey are relatively transparentThey are not transparent at allNo opinion



*1.2 The Transparency Register provides information to politicians and public officials about thosewho approach them with a view to influencing the decision-making and policy formulation andimplementation process. The Register also allows for public scrutiny; giving citizens and otherinterest groups the possibility to track the activities and potential influence of lobbyists.

Do you consider the Transparency Register a useful tool for regulating lobbying?

Very usefulSomewhat usefulNot useful at allNo opinion



2. Scope of the Register

*2.1 Activities covered by the Register include lobbying, interest representation and advocacy. Itcovers all activities carried out to influence - directly or indirectly - policymaking, policyimplementation and decision-making in the European Parliament and the European Commission, nomatter where they are carried out or which channel or method of communication is used.This definition is appropriate:




*

*

*

6

*2.2 The Register does not apply to certain entities, for example, churches and religious communities,political parties, Member States' government services, third countries' governments, internationalintergovernmental organisations and their diplomatic missions. Regional public authorities and theirrepresentative offices do not have to register but can register if they wish to do so. On the otherhand, the Register applies to local, municipal authorities and cities as well as to associations andnetworks created to represent them.The scope of the Register should be:

Changed to exclude certain types of entities (please elaborate in the comments box below)Changed to include certain types of entities (please elaborate in the comments box below)Preserved the same as currentlyNo opinion



3. Register website

3.1 What is your impression of the Register web?site

Good Average PoorNoopinion

*Design and structure

*Availability of information / documents

*Ease of search function

*Accessibility (e.g. features for visually impairedpersons, ease of reading page)

*Access via mobile devices



*

*

*

*

*

*



7

4.Additional comments

Final comments or ideas on any additional subjects that you consider important in the context of thispublic consultation (Optional)


If you wish you may provide additional information (position papers, reports, etc) in support of youranswers to this public consultation. Please upload no more than three files of up to 1Mb each.Attachments above this number willl not be considered.

Attach files

End of Part A

Part B includes questions that require a certain knowledge of theTransparency Register. Proceed to Part B (optional).

*Do you want to proceed to Part B ?

YesNo

B. SPECIFIC PART (13 questions)

1. Structure of the Register

*1.1 The Register invites organisations to sign up under a particular section, for example, professionalconsultancies, NGOs, trade associations, etc (Annex I of the ).Interinstitutional AgreementHave you encountered any difficulties with this categorisation?

YesNoNo opinion



*

*

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.277.01.0011.01.ENG

8

2. Data disclosure and quality

*2.1 Entities joining the Register are asked to provide certain information (contact details, goals andremit of the organisation, legislative dossiers followed, fields of interest, membership, financial data,etc) in order to identify the profile, the capacity of the entity and the interest represented (Annex I ofthe ).Interinstitutional Agreement

The right type of information is required from the registrant:

Fully agreeToo much is askedToo little is askedNo opinion



*2.2 It is easy to provide the information required:




*2.3 Do you see any room for simplification as regards the data disclosure requirements?

YesNoNo opinion



*2.4 What is your impression of the overall data quality in the Register:

Good

Average

*

*

*

*


9

AveragePoorNo opinion



3. Code of Conduct and procedure for Alerts and Complaints

*3.1 The Code of Conduct sets out the rules for all those who register and establishes the underlyingprinciples for standards of behaviour in all relations with the EU institutions (Annex III of the Interinstit

).utional AgreementThe Code is based on a sound set of rules and principles:




*3.2 Anyone may trigger an alert or make a complaint about possible breaches of the Code ofConduct. Alerts concern factual errors and complaints relate to more serious breaches of behaviouralnature (Annex IV of the Interinstitutional Agreement).a) The present procedure for dealing with alerts and complaints is adequate:




*b) Do you think that the names of organisations that are suspended under the alerts and complaintsshould be made public?

YesNo

No opinion

*

*

*



10

No opinion



4. Register website – registration and updating

4.1 How user-friendly is in your opinion the Register in relation to registration and updating?website

StraightforwardSatisfactory but canbe improved

CumbersomeNoopinion

*Registration process

*Updating process(annual & partial)



5. Current advantages linked to registration

5.1 The European Parliament and the European Commission currently offer certain practicaladvantages (incentives) linked to being on the Register. The Commission has also announced itsintention to soon amend its rules on Expert groups to link membership to registration.Which of these advantages are important to you?


Veryimportant

Somewhatimportant

Notimportant

Noopinion

*Access to Parliament buildings:long-term access passes to the EP'spremises are only issued toindividuals representing, or workingfor registered organisations

*

*

*


11

*Committee public hearings:guests invited to speak at a hearingneed to be registered

*Patronage: Parliament does notgrant its patronage to relevantorganisations that are not registered


Veryimportant

Somewhatimportant

Notimportant

Noopinion

*Meetings: organisations orself-employed individuals engaged inrelevant activities must be registeredin order to hold meetings withCommissioners, Cabinet membersand Directors-General

*Public consultations: theCommission sends automatic alerts toregistered entities about consultationsin areas of interest indicated by them;it differentiates between registeredand non-registered entities whenpublishing the results

*Patronage: Commissioners do notgrant their patronage to relevantorganisations that are not registered

*Mailing lists: organisations featuringon any mailing lists set up to alertthem about certain Commissionactivities are asked to register

*Expert groups: registration in theTransparency Register is required inorder for members to be appointed(refers to organisations and individualsappointed to represent a commoninterest shared by stakeholders in aparticular policy area)


*

*

*

*

*

*

*

12



6. Features of a future mandatory system

*6.1 Do you believe that there are further interactions between the EU institutions and interest groupsthat could be made conditional upon prior registration (e. g. access to MEPs and EU officials, events,premises, or featuring on specific mailing lists)?

YesNoNo opinion



*6.2 Do you agree with the Commission's view that the Council of the EU should participate in the newInterinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory Register?

YesNoNo opinion



7. Looking beyond Brussels

*7.1 How does the Transparency Register compare overall to 'lobby registers' at the EU MemberState level?

It is betterIt is worseIt is neither better, nor worseNo opinion

Good practices or lessons learned at the EU Member State level to be considered, or pitfalls to beavoided. (Optional)


*

*

*

13

8. Additional comments

Final comments or ideas on any additional subjects that you consider important in the context of thispublic consultation (Optional)


*Publication of your consultationI agree to my contribution being published.I do not agree to my contribution being published.

Justification:

Specific privacy statement

*

http://wcmcom-ec-europa-eu-wip.wcm3vue.cec.eu.int:8080/transparency/docs/privacy_statement.pdf


Annex 2A: Summary of Campaign Responses (for Part A)

Campaign 1 2 3 3

Are you responding as: The representative of anorganisation not registered in theTransparency Register (n=32)

The representative of anorganisation not registered in theTransparency Register (n=25)

An individual in my personalcapacity (n=37)

The representative of anorganisation registered in theTransparency Register (n=11)

The representative of anorganisation not registered in theTransparency Register (n=1)

I am a resident in (only one choicepossible):

10 MS represented

The organisation's head office isin:

Germany (n=28)

Austria (n=4)

Austria (n=25) 6 MS represented

Your organisation belongs to thefollowing type: (CorrespondingRegister Group)

Other sub-national publicauthorities (VI)

Other sub-national publicauthorities (VI)

Non-governmental organisations,platforms, networks, ad-hoccoalitions, temporary structuresand other similar organisations (III)

Other profile various local authorities various local authorities

a) Do you agree that ethical andtransparent lobbying helps policydevelopment?

Fully agree (n=31)

Partially agree (n=1)

Fully agree (n=25) Fully agree (n=32)


Disagree (n=1)

Fully agree (n=7)


Comments orsuggestions (Optional)

[relevant themes are shown]

The priority should be toregulate the influence oforganisations and individualsrepresenting special interests

Public authorities cannot beequated to lobbying or asstakeholders

The priority should be toregulate the influence oforganisations and individualsrepresenting special interests

Public authorities cannot beequated to lobbying or asstakeholders

Checks and balances areneeded to take account ofdifferent interests withinsociety

Transparency requirementsshould extend to all 30,000Commission (and agencystaff)

EU decision-makers shouldbe banned from meeting withunregistered lobbyists

Meetings with lobbyistsshould be published online

Transparency in lobbying ismore than just the lobbyregister

Ethical and transparentlobbying are good for policymaking

Ethical and transparentlobbying needs to be defined

Transparency requirementsshould extend to all 30,000Commission (and agencystaff)

Full minutes or meetingreports should be taken in farmore meetings

Transparent lobbying doesnot equate to ethicallobbying

Checks and balances areneeded to take account of



Campaign 1 2 3 3

different interests withinsociety

Transparency in lobbying ismore than just the lobbyregister

Meetings with lobbyistsshould be published online

b) It is often said that achievingappropriate lobbying regulation isnot just about transparency, i.e.shedding light on the way in whichlobbyists and policy-makers areoperating. Which of the belowother principles do you alsoconsider important for achieving asound framework for relationswith interest representatives?More than one answer possible

Integrity (n=32)

+ equality of access (n=2)

+ other (n=8)

Integrity (n=23)

Equality of access (n=21)

Other (n=29)

Integrity (n=7)

Equality of access (n=6)

No opinion (n=2)

Other (n=12)

+ Integrity (n=2)

+ Equality of access (n=3)



A transparent administrationensures a record of decisionstaken

Equality of access should beensured through the wholedecision-making process

Public bodies are treated inthe same way as commerciallobbyists (and should not be)

Elected local politicians havethe same democraticlegitimacy as members of theEuropean Parliament



Account must be taken of theimbalance between lobbyingresources between privateand public interests

Transparent lobbying doesnot equate to ethicallobbying


Account must be taken of theimbalance between lobbyingresources between privateand public interests

Public interests mustultimately prevail

Lobbying on behalf ofoppressive regimes should beprevented

No “gifts” from lobbyists toofficials



Campaign 1 2 3 3

c) In your opinion, howtransparent are the Europeaninstitutions as public institutions?

They are relatively transparent(n=32)


They are highly transparent (n=1)

No opinion (n=26)


They are not transparent at all(n=5)

No opinion (n=10)




European institutions largelywork transparently and thelegislative process can betracked well

Trilogues and criteria forpublic consultations should betransparent

Decisions on selection ofmembers for expert groupsare justified

Negotiations on the last IIA onthe transparency register werenot in public

European institutions largelywork transparently and thelegislative process can betracked well

Trilogues and criteria forpublic consultations should betransparent

Decisions on selection ofmembers for expert groupsare justified

Open data must be implementedto ensure that EU documents andinformation are published onlineand made easily available tocitizens.

The EU institutions have introducedsome important transparencymeasures. However, there is muchthat could be improved across theEU institutions to boosttransparency. Lobby register: Asmentioned elsewhere there shouldbe a legally-binding register withcomprehensive disclosurerequirements and an active

1.2 The Transparency Registerprovides information to politiciansand public officials about thosewho approach them with a view toinfluencing the decision-makingand policy formulation andimplementation process. TheRegister also allows for publicscrutiny; giving citizens and otherinterest groups the possibility totrack the activities and potentialinfluence of lobbyists. Do youconsider the TransparencyRegister a useful tool forregulating lobbying?

Somewhat useful (n=31)

Not useful at all (n=1)

Not useful at all (n=25) Somewhat useful (n=35)

Very useful (n=1)

No opinion (n=1)

Somewhat useful (n=12)


Transparency Register is auseful tool

Transparency Register is ill-conceived

There are exceptions for large

Transparency Register shouldbe mandatory and legallybinding

Transparency Register shouldbe mandatory and legallybinding



Campaign 1 2 3 3

[relevant themes are shown] The Commission has only bewilling to hold high-level talkswith representatives of localauthorities and municipalauthorities after registration

No provisions to ensureequality of access to decision-makers

stakeholders and differencesbetween regional and localauthorities

Disclosure of lobbying budgetsseems not to work in manycases

Register must cover alllobbyists

Information must be accurateand up-to-date

There should be adequatesanctioning capacities

Information must be accurateand up-to-date

Negotiations on legally bindinglobby register should be inplace by 2017

There needs to be a clearthreshold for registrationwhich clarifies whatconstitutes lobbying and whatdoes not

2.1 Activities covered by theRegister include lobbying, interestrepresentation and advocacy. Itcovers all activities carried out toinfluence - directly or indirectly -policymaking, policyimplementation and decision-making in the EuropeanParliament and the EuropeanCommission, no matter wherethey are carried out or whichchannel or method ofcommunication is used. Thisdefinition is appropriate:

Partially agree (n=32) Disagree (n=25) Fully agree (n=33)


No opinion (n=1)

Fully agree (n=12)



The broad definition has led tomisunderstandings in the past

The scope is too imprecise andcould catch MEP campaignevents and information eventsat the Commission

There should be no exceptionswhere direct or indirectinfluence is identified

Support for a broad definition

All efforts to weaken thedefinition should be resisted

Support for a broad definition

All efforts to weaken thedefinition should be resisted

2.2 The Register does not apply tocertain entities, for example,churches and religiouscommunities, political parties,Member States' governmentservices, third countries'governments, international

Changed to exclude certain typesof entities (please elaborate in thecomments box below) (n=32)

Changed to exclude certain typesof entities (please elaborate in thecomments box below) (n=25)

Changed to include certain types ofentities (please elaborate in thecomments box below) (n=37)

Changed to include certain types ofentities (please elaborate in thecomments box below) (n=12)



Campaign 1 2 3 3

intergovernmental organisationsand their diplomatic missions.Regional public authorities andtheir representative offices do nothave to register but can register ifthey wish to do so. On the otherhand, the Register applies to local,municipal authorities and cities aswell as to associations andnetworks created to representthem. The scope of the Registershould be:



Direct representatives of localauthorities should beexempted of registering in theTransparency Register

The influence of directrepresentatives of localauthorities should not beequated with the activity ofprivate interest groups


Direct representatives of localauthorities should beexempted of registering in theTransparency Register

Transparency Register shouldcover all actors that have animpact on EU decision-making

Embassies and third countriesshould be covered by theRegister


Law firms, PR firms and thinktanks should be included andshould declare all their clients


Registration should depend onthe nature of the activity andnot the type of entity

All interest representativesthat undertake lobbyingactivities should be registered

Mandatory registration isrequired




Campaign 1 2 3 3

3.1 What is your impression of theRegister website?: Design andstructure

Average (n=31)

Good (n=1)

Good (n=24)

Average (n=1)

Average (n=18)

Good (n=15)

Poor (n=2)

No opinion (n=2)

Average (n=7)

Good (n=2)

Poor (n=2)

No opinion (n=1)

3.1 What is your impression of theRegister website?: Availability ofinformation / documents

Average (n=32) Average (n=25) Average (n=20)

Good (n=8)

Poor (n=6)

No opinion (n=3)

Average (n=7)

Poor (n=4)

No opinion (n=1)

3.1 What is your impression of theRegister website?: Ease of searchfunction

No opinion (n=31)

Poor (n=1)

No opinion (n=25) Average (n=20)

Good (n=5)

Poor (n=5)

No opinion (n=7)

Average (n=5)

Good (n=2)

Poor (n=4)

No opinion (n=1)

3.1 What is your impression of theRegister website?: Accessibility(e.g. features for visually impairedpersons, ease of reading page)

Good (n=31)

No opinion (n=1)

No opinion (n=25) Average (n=7)

Good (n=2)

Poor (n=2)

No opinion (n=26)

Average (n=2)

Good (n=4)

Poor (n=1)

No opinion (n=5)

3.1 What is your impression of theRegister website?: Access viamobile devices

No opinion (n=32) No opinion (n=25) Average (n=7)

No opinion (n=30)

Average (n=3)

Good (n=1)

Poor (n=1)

No opinion (n=7)



There should be a separatecategory for local authoritiesor their associations


Should be able to view andorder the full list of registeredlobbyists by differentcategories (no. employed,budget, etc.)

The search function needs tobe improved

Membership of EU Structuresand platforms should beincluded

The 100 most recentregistrants should be included

News listing should be moreprominent

Final comments or ideas on anyadditional subjects that youconsider important in the contextof this public consultation(Optional)


Quality of data in Registerneed to be improved

Systematic checks on at least20% of declarations areneeded annually

Sanctions must be in place for

Quality of data in Registerneed to be improved

Systematic checks on at least20% of declarations areneeded annually

Sanctions must be in place for



Campaign 1 2 3 3

inaccurate or misleadinginformation

Unregistered lobby groupsshould no longer be able tomeet officials

Register should be extendedto fully include the EuropeanCouncil, the Council andpermanent representations

Changes are required to thedisclosure requirements(financial, lobby issue,lobbyists names, through thirdparties)

inaccurate or misleadinginformation

Unregistered lobby groupsshould no longer be able tomeet officials

Register should be extendedto fully include the EuropeanCouncil, the Council andpermanent representations

Changes are required to thedisclosure requirements(financial, lobby issue,lobbyists names, through thirdparties, no representation ofunregistered clients)

Updates should becompulsory and twice per year

Attach files One file attached

Do you want to proceed to Part B? No (n=32) No (n=25) No (n=36)

Yes (n=1)

Yes (n=11)

No (n=1)


Annex 2B: Summary of Campaign Responses (for Part B)

Question Campaign 3

Are you responding as: The representative of an organisation registered in the Transparency Register (n=11)

1.1 The Register invites organisations to sign up under a particular section, for example,professional consultancies, NGOs, trade associations, etc. (Annex I of the InterinstitutionalAgreement). Have you encountered any difficulties with this categorisation?

No (n=6)Yes (n=3)No opinion (n=2)

Comments or suggestions (Optional)[relevant themes are shown]

A number of organisations have categorised themselves wrongly

Some of these can be dealt with by using clearer titles and descriptions for the differentcategories

2.1 Entities joining the Register are asked to provide certain information (contact details,goals and remit of the organisation, legislative dossiers followed, fields of interest,membership, financial data, etc.) in order to identify the profile, the capacity of the entityand the interest represented (Annex I of the Interinstitutional Agreement). The right typeof information is required from the registrant:

Too little is asked (n=11)


Data are inaccurate

More information is required on individual lobbyists

Lobby turnover should be disclosed to the nearest 10,000 euros

Lobby dossier disclosure is poorly policed

Funding sources should be disclosed

Registrants should specify third part organisations through which they conduct theirlobbying

2.2 It is easy to provide the information required: Fully agree (n=5)Partially agree (n=6)


Need for automatic alerts that ask registrants to confirm implausible declarations

Forecasts for the next 6-12 months lobbying should also be provided

2.3 Do you see any room for simplification as regards the data disclosure requirements? No (n=11)


Data disclosure requirements need strengthening

The guidance needs simplifying and clarifying

Guidance and key elements from IIA could be incorporated into one document andcould be accessed as registrants go through the update process

2.4 What is your impression of the overall data quality in the Register: Poor (n=11)


Almost half the entries in the Register are flawed

EU Transparency Register secretariat needs to be adequately staffed to undertakechecks

A minimum number of entries must be checked each year

Software should be used to alert registrants to unlikely-looking postings

Priority should be placed on ensuring accuracy of financial data



Question Campaign 3

3.1 The Code of Conduct sets out the rules for all those who register and establishes theunderlying principles for standards of behaviour in all relations with the EU institutions(Annex III of the Interinstitutional Agreement). The Code is based on a sound set of rulesand principles:



Definition of 'inappropriate behaviour' needs to be clarified

Should prohibit representation by private firms of regimes in breach of human rights

Should prohibit representation by private firms of the tobacco industry

Effective use should be made of sanctions

a) The present procedure for dealing with alerts and complaints is adequate: Disagree (n=11)


There are insufficient resources to deal with complaints or to make sufficient checks

Actions must be taken against organisations submitting inaccurate register entries toimprove confidence in the system

Sanctions such as suspending passes should be included

b) Do you think that the names of organisations that are suspended under the alerts andcomplaints procedure should be made public?

Yes (n=11)


This is absolutely critical

Making it public would be an important incentive to provide accurate information

Would provide important information until a legally binding register comes into force

4.1 How user-friendly is in your opinion the Register website in relation to registration andupdating?: Registration process

Straightforward (n=2)Satisfactory but can be improved (n=7)No opinion (n=2)

4.1 How user-friendly is in your opinion the Register website in relation to registration andupdating?: Updating process (annual & partial)

Straightforward (n=3)Cumbersome (n=1)Satisfactory but can be improved (n=6)No opinion (n=1)


Suspect that many mistakes are accidental

The register’s software could help identify and warn about possible errors

More regular updates could be provided, twice per year and on shared dates

5.1 The European Parliament and the European Commission currently offer certainpractical advantages (incentives) linked to being on the Register. The Commission has alsoannounced its intention to soon amend its rules on Expert groups to link membership toregistration. Which of these advantages are important to you? In the European Parliament(EP): Access to Parliament buildings: long-term access passes to the EP's premises are onlyissued to individuals representing, or working for registered organisations

Very important (n=10)Somewhat important (n=1)



Question Campaign 3

5.1 The European Parliament and the European Commission currently offer certainpractical advantages (incentives) linked to being on the Register. The Commission has alsoannounced its intention to soon amend its rules on Expert groups to link membership toregistration. Which of these advantages are important to you? In the European Parliament(EP): Committee public hearings: guests invited to speak at a hearing need to be registered

Very important (n=8)Somewhat important (n=1)Not important (n=2)

5.1 The European Parliament and the European Commission currently offer certainpractical advantages (incentives) linked to being on the Register. The Commission has alsoannounced its intention to soon amend its rules on Expert groups to link membership toregistration. Which of these advantages are important to you? In the European Parliament(EP): Patronage: Parliament does not grant its patronage to relevant organisations that arenot registered

Very important (n=8)Somewhat important (n=2)No opinion (n=1)

In the European Commission: Meetings: organisations or self-employed individualsengaged in relevant activities must be registered in order to hold meetings withCommissioners, Cabinet members and Directors-General

Very important (n=11)

In the European Commission: Public consultations: the Commission sends automatic alertsto registered entities about consultations in areas of interest indicated by them; itdifferentiates between registered and non-registered entities when publishing the results


In the European Commission: Patronage: Commissioners do not grant their patronage torelevant organisations that are not registered

Very important (n=8)Somewhat important (n=2)No opinion (n=1)

In the European Commission: Mailing lists: organisations featuring on any mailing lists setup to alert them about certain Commission activities are asked to register


In the European Commission: Expert groups: registration in the Transparency Register isrequired in order for members to be appointed (refers to organisations and individualsappointed to represent a common interest shared by stakeholders in a particular policyarea)

Very important (n=10)Somewhat important (n=1)


Important to incentivise participation in the Register before a legally binding registercomes into force

Such incentives only boost the number of registrations, they do not improve the dataquality

Incentives do not replace the need for a legally binding register

6.1 Do you believe that there are further interactions between the EU institutions andinterest groups that could be made conditional upon prior registration (e. g. access to MEPsand EU officials, events, premises, or featuring on specific mailing lists)?

Yes (n=11)



Question Campaign 3


Registration should be a requirement for access

The EC's policy of not meeting unregistered lobbyists should be extended to cover allCommission officials involved in EU legislation

Members of the European Parliament should list their interactions with lobby groups

Meetings with lobbyists should be published

Officials should not attend events organised by non-registered lobbyists

A mandatory register that is legally binding is required

6.2 Do you agree with the Commission's view that the Council of the EU should participatein the new Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory register?

Yes (n=11)


European Council, Council of the EU and permanent representations should be included

The Register should be revised and a legally-binding system set up even without theCouncil

7.1 How does the Transparency Register compare overall to 'lobby registers' at the EUMember State level?

No opinion (n=9)It is neither better, nor worse (n=2)

Good practices or lessons learned at the EU Member State level to be considered, or pitfallsto be avoided. (Optional)[relevant themes are shown]

EU should set best practice standards to serve as an example for Member States

A legally binding and mandatory register does not automatically mean that lobbyingwith be transparent

A central database should be used to aggregate all lobbying information (centraltransparency hub)

Introduction of a system of effective and inevitable sanctions for those who do notcomply

Introduction of a system of sanctions for EU officials who do not comply with theirdisclosure obligations

Introduction of an anti-revolving door and ban on registering as a lobbyist in the periodequal to terms of left office

There needs to be legally binding legislative footprint regulation

Potential to learn from good and bad practice in EU Member States, but also from othercountries such as Canada

Final comments or ideas on any additional subjects that you consider important in thecontext of this public consultation (Optional)[relevant themes are shown]

All interinstitutional agreement preparatory meetings should be open to the public andweb-streamed

The draft agreement, proposed changes, agendas and minutes should be availableonline

All EU institutions should conduct regular reviews of their transparency rules and theway that they are implemented

Publication of your consultation I agree to my contribution being published (n=10)I do not agree to my contribution being published (n=1)

Risk & Policy Analysts LimitedFarthing Green House, 1 Beccles Road

Loddon, Norfolk, NR14 6LT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1508 528465Fax: +44 1508 520758

E-mail: [email protected]: www.rpaltd.co.uk

If printed by RPA, this report is published on 100% recycled paper