Burson-Marsteller Report: The Definitive Guide to Lobbying the European Institutions

The Definitive Guide to Lobbying the European InstitutionsBased on a survey of the European Parliament,

the Council and the European CommissionSpring 2005

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:14

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:14

3THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO LOBBYING THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS

CONTENTS

Background and methodology 4

Executive summary 5

What makes a decision-maker sit up and listen? 6

Interconnected and interdependent institutions 8

The definitive tips for effective lobbying 9

Industry scores higher than NGOs for effective lobbying sector by sector 10

Lobby the advisors - not just the decision-maker 12

The most effective ways to communicate messages 14

National newspapers are nearly as important as the Financial Times 16

Appendix: Survey and sample details 18

About Burson-Marsteller and BKSH 22

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:14

4 THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO LOBBYING THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS

The aim of this survey was to improve unders-tanding of what constitutes an effectiveapproach by industry and NGOs to commu-nicating and lobbying on European Unionpolicy issues with decision-makers in the EUinstitutions: the European Commission,Council of Ministers and Members of theEuropean Parliament.

Burson-Marsteller/BKSH commissioned thesurvey from Harris Interactive (HI), a globalindependent company specialising in researchon strategic communications. In 2001 and2003 respectively, Wirthlin – which hassince merged with Harris - carried out similarsurveys on perceptions of lobbying amongMEPs and the European Commission’s seniorofficials.

The survey findings reported here result fromHI Europe’s EU Omnibus study, conductedbetween 12 April-11 May 2005.

This survey was conducted via telephoneinterviews with 150 senior representativesfrom the key institutions involved in EUdecision making:

European Commission officials - Heads of Sector and above, from relevantDirectorates-General (DGs) and the personal offices of the Commissioners(cabinets)Members of the European Parliament(MEPs), broadly representative in terms of the composition of Parliament’s political groups and nationality Member states’ permanent representationsto the EU - senior level staff.

The survey was offered in the three main EUlanguages - English, French and German. Thesample included a mix of respondents bycountry, DGs, Committee, political group andCouncil formations.

BACKGROUND ANDMETHODOLOGY

Reproduction of the data contained in this report is authorised provided credit is given to Burson-Marsteller.

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:14


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Within the European Union’s Council, Parliament and Commission the general view is that industryand NGOs are equally effective lobbyists. On a scale of 1 – 10, each secured a rating of 5.6.However, when comparing the effectiveness of industry and NGO lobbying across eleven sectors,industry comes out ahead in all but one of the sectors.

The most common mistakes madeby industry lobbyists are comingto a debate too early or too late inthe process, using inappropriatebriefing materials, and basingtheir position on an excessivelynational position.

By far the greatest error made byNGOs is using emotion rather thanfacts to advance their case.

Meetings and written informationscore much higher among the samplegroup as conduits for substantiveinput than do dinner and lunchbriefings or exhibitions and eveningreceptions.

While the Financial Times is rated asthe best source of information onindustry by the Commission andCouncil, MEPs opt first for theirown national newspaper, followedby the Financial Times. AgenceEurope continues to be perceivedas important (except in Parliament).

English is the favoured second lan-guage of 85 per cent of respondents.

Industry and NGOs are equally effective lobbyists

How would you rate the effectiveness of lobbying of the following organisations?

Not at all effective Extremely effective

Member state governments

Other EU institutions

Industry

NGOs

Third country governments

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Effectiveness of Lobbying

7.0

6.8

5.6

5.6

4.6

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:14


WHAT MAKES A DECISION-MAKER SIT UP AND LISTEN?

The survey aimed to gain a betterunderstanding of the most effectiveways to communicate with theEU institutions and, crucially, toidentify key aspects of good andbad lobbying.

A key finding is that industry andNGOs are regarded as being equallycompetent at lobbying. There are,however, some small differences ofopinion between the institutions onthe comparative effectiveness ofindustry and NGO lobbying. Whilethe Parliament and Commission rateNGO lobbying marginally moreeffective than industry’s, Councilofficials believe industry is slightlymore effective.

Overall though, both industry andNGOs are rated by the Commission,Parliament and Council as equallyeffective – each on 5.6 – in oursurvey.

This is important because it challen-ges the assumption among manyNGOs and some politicians that itis difficult for NGOs to counter-balance industry lobbying; and itchallenges the view in some industrysectors that NGO lobbying is alwaysmore effective than their own.

Despite this, the EU’s decision-makers find unappealing some ofthe approaches that are made tothem.

Lobbying in Brussels is important because this is where significantpolitical power has shifted in 21st century Europe.

Of the following kinds of poor lobbying, which does industry commit most frequently?

Most frequent kinds of poor industry lobbying

5.7 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.34.9 4.8 4.6

4.3

2.1

Frequently

Not at all

10

8

6

4

2

0

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:14


WHAT MAKES A DECISION-MAKER SIT UP AND LISTEN?

And to a great extent, industry andNGOs are making the same mistakesin their lobbying. Both industryand NGOs:

provide inappropriate briefingmaterialsare too early or too late withtheir lobbyingfail to understand EU processesand proceduresapproach the wrong person.

While industry is also criticised forbasing its arguments on positions

that are too national, the highestscore for an example of bad lob-bying tactics (5.9) goes to NGOs’tendency to base their positions onemotion rather than facts.

The finding that NGOs too oftenbase a position on emotion is by nomeans a blanket criticism. The datashows that MEPs, no doubt becausethey are political campaigners withan instinctive sympathy for thevalue of clear messages, have agreater liking for the NGOs’approach.

While the Commission gives NGOsa score of 6.6 for this approach thecorresponding figure given byMEPs is 5.6.

Being too aggressive or being insuf-ficiently transparent score lower interms of frequency of occurrence forboth industry and NGO lobbyists.

Offering unethical inducements isthe least common example of poorlobbying among industry and NGOs.

Most frequent kinds of poor NGO lobbying

Of the following kinds of poor lobbying, which do NGOs commit most frequently?

5.4 5.4

4.3

5.1 5.1

5.9

4.64.9

4.6

2.1

Being too early or too late in the process

Inappropriate briefing materials

Basing a position on an excessively national position

Failing to understand EU process & procedure

Approaching the wrong person

Basing a position on emotion rather than facts

Not sufficiently transparent

Lobbying by press release

Being too aggressive

Offering unethical inducements

Frequently

Not at all

10

8

6

4

2

0

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

INTERCONNECTED AND INTERDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS


How would you rate the effectiveness of lobbying of the following organisations?

Effectiveness of Lobbying – Breakdown by EU Institution

Member state governments

Other EU institutions

Industry

NGOs

Third country governments

7.46.37.4

6.86.56.9

5.85.45.7

5.95.75.3

5.14.44.5

Similarly in Brussels, the intercon-nections between different EUinstitutions are important forunderstanding how decisions aremade, and how they can beinfluenced.

Our study confirms that memberstate governments and EU institu-tions themselves have a crucialimpact on decision-makers inother EU institutions. For all threeinstitutions member state govern-ments and other EU institutionsscore more highly for effectivelobbying than industry and NGOs– but with Parliament slightly

more immune from influence bythese sources. This confirms againthat most of the time the institu-tions will have to be handledtogether, simultaneously, and notsequentially or separately. Andthis is certainly the case withadvocacy on the vast majority oflegislative proposals.

The lowest effectiveness of lob-bying is achieved by third countrygovernments. This is an importantfinding: governments outside the EUcannot be relied upon to articulate acase effectively.

In national capitals the interaction between political institutions is animportant aspect of government.

Not at all effective Extremely effective

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

European Commission European Parliament Member State Permanent Representation

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

THE DEFINITIVE TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE LOBBYING


The 12 Definitive Tips for Effective Lobbying:

Be part of the thinking process:As well as getting to the decision-maker when an issue is first appearing,establish processes to identify whichissues will arise in future which mightrequire decision-makers to act.

Strategise - and move with history:Some battles in the EU are un-winna-ble head-on. Identify the direction ofchange and when necessary adapt tochange, and influence its direction,rather than trying to stop it.

Think politically:Identify the focus of political argument, the values and interestsinvolved, and the potential basis for consensus.

In Brussels, Europeanising the message is important, and frequently, it needs politicising too:Defending purely national issues in Brussels is difficult if not often counter-productive – although a national argument may be appropriate with some MEPs or a permanent representation.

Recognise – and utilise – theimperfect communications which are endemic between and within EU institutions.

Be transparent:Today’s political orthodoxy requiresall interests to have the right to beheard – so don’t be afraid to be totally open about who you represent,or surprised about others being heardtoo. The EU institutions are moretransparent than most national administrations.

Allies, partners and coalitions:Search for allies, and build coalitionswhenever possible. Ad hoc and temporary issue specific coalitions can be just as influential as long standing partnerships.

Recognise that “sound science”, onits own, is a poor lobbying message: Support it with reference to the socialand political choices that decision-makers must necessarily make.

Understand the policy - process - strategy interconnection:In Brussels institutions and processesmake a difference. Understand therelationship between process and policy outcome. And timing is alwayscrucial, as is targeting the right peoplein the right way with appropriate briefing materials for the different type of audience (official or politician).

Empower Brussels’ advocates:Get beyond “fly in fly out” lobbying.The speed and constancy of EU decision making, and the compromisesnecessary, make it impossible for outsiders to influence effectively EU decision making. Be there on the ground.

Recognise and respect Europe’sdiversity in culture, language, andthought and where possible use it toyour advantage.

Be creative: S/he who crafts the compromise oftenwins in Brussels.

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

Please rate the following industries according to your perception of their lobbying efforts.

INDUSTRY SCORES HIGHER THAN NGOs FOR EFFECTIVELOBBYING SECTOR BY SECTOR


In every sector – with the exception ofconsumer goods, food and drinks –industry is seen as being more effectiveeven if by a small margin.

Large investments are made by thechemicals, energy and transport indus-tries in their lobbying activities – andit is reflected in the survey findings.The three sectors gain high ratings foreffectiveness of lobbying by industry -and in the case of chemicals andtransport by the NGOs that shadowtheir work too.

Industry has a strong lead over NGOsin effective lobbying in four sectors:

energy (6.5 versus 5.8); financialservices (6.2 versus 5.2); electrical andelectronics (6.1 versus 5.3); defenceand aerospace (5.7 versus 4.7).

Industry enjoys a smaller advantage inhealthcare and pharmaceuticals (6.1versus 5.6) and IT and telecommuni-cations (6.1 versus 5.6).

The exception to the pattern is NGOlobbying in the consumer goods, foodand drinks sector where it is seen asslightly more effective than industry(6.2 versus 6.1). This seems to reflectthe recent debate within the EU overobesity, nutrition and health claims

labelling for food. Industry lobbyingin the consumer goods, food anddrinks sector was towards the bottomof the list in terms of its effectiveness.

Across the institutions, the financialservices and healthcare/pharmaceuti-cals sectors stand out amongCommission officials for effectiveindustry lobbying. In chemicals,industry is just ahead of NGOs inParliament, while defence andaerospace lobbying appears to beeffective towards the Commission butrelatively poor vis-à-vis Parliament.

While, overall, industry and NGOs are seen as equally effective lobbyists,when it comes to sector by sector comparisons industry comes out ahead.

Effectiveness of Industry Lobbying - Breakdown by EU Institution

Chemical

Energy

Transport

Financial services

HC/pharmaceuticals

IT/telecommunications

Electrical & electronics

Consumer goods/food/drinks

Utilities/public services

Defence & aerospace

Retailing

6.36.96.6

6.76.26.6

6.56.46.1

7.25.85.8

6.96.15.6

6.75.76.2

6.45.66.46.56.55.4

6.05.65.5

6.65.25.8

5.64.75.0

Very poor Exceptionally good

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

Please rate the following NGOs according to your perception of their lobbying efforts.

INDUSTRY SCORES HIGHER THAN NGOs FOR EFFECTIVELOBBYING SECTOR BY SECTOR


Reflecting the traditional bias withinindustry for focusing their lobbyingefforts on the Commission, industrylobbying in the chemicals sector isthe only area in which MEPs scoreindustry higher than do Commission

officials. In all the other sectors MEPsgive industry lobbying a lower scorethan do Commission officials.

Interestingly, our findings on whichsectors industry is ranked most and

least effective are almost identical tothose in our surveys on lobbying theParliament and Commission, conduc-ted in 2001 and 2003 respectively.Chemicals lobbying remains most effec-tive and retailing the least effective.

How would you rate the effectiveness of industry/NGOs lobbying efforts in general.

Chemical

Energy

Transport

Financial services

HC/pharmaceuticals





Defence & aerospace

Retailing

6.76.4 6.5

5.86.3

6.06.2

5.2

6.15.6 5.6

5.3

6.1 6.1 6.16.25.7 5.6 5.7

4.75.0 4.7

Effectiveness of NGO Lobbying - Breakdown by EU Institution

Chemical


Transport

Energy

HC/pharmaceuticals




Financial services

Retailing

Defence & aerospace

Very poor Exceptionally good

6.46.76.2

5.96.56.0

6.45.86.0

6.15.46.0

5.95.65.5

5.65.36.2

6.05.45.6

5.55.05.55.55.05.4

5.34.64.35.34.35.0

Industry

Effectiveness of Lobbying: Industry - NGOs 10

8

6

4

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Exceptionallygood

Very poor

NGOs


H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

LOBBY THE ADVISORS – NOT JUST THE DECISION-MAKER


As seen in the above graph, thehelpfulness of advice that a decision-maker receives from staff and col-leagues (not to mention his or herown research) dwarfs the potentialinfluence of the media, and the lob-bying efforts of industry and NGOs.

The lesson for lobbyists is that it isas important to seek to influencestaff and colleagues as it is tolobby the decision-maker.

Campaigns clearly need to aim atwider spheres of influence, not justthe spider at the centre of a web.Nowhere is this illustrated moregraphically than among MEPs,who give a rating of 8.5 – one ofthe highest in the survey – to thehelpfulness that they attach totheir staff in making informeddecisions. Parliamentary assistantsand officials are therefore keyinfluencers in Brussels.

An important lesson for an industry or NGO seeking to lobby the EUis contained in the report’s finding that decision-makers look first totheir staff for help – not to the lobbyist who has just left the room.

Please rate the following sources in terms of how helpful each one is in providingyou with what you need to make informed decisions in your work.

Your staff

Your colleagues

Your personal research

Media

Industry representation

Constituency/local information

NGO representation

8.0

7.6

7.6

5.7

5.5

5.4

5.3

Helpfulness of Different Information Sources

Not at all helpful Extremely helpful0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

LOBBY THE ADVISORS – NOT JUST THE DECISION-MAKER


A sharp reminder of the time thatindustry needs to invest in influencingadvisers can be seen in the findingthat Commission decision-makersrate the helpfulness of staff at 7.9while that of industry is just 5.7 -only just above the influence of themedia.

While NGOs score highly withMEPs for helpfulness, they achievelower ratings with the Commission

and Council – possibly because offi-cials are naturally more interested infact than emotion. Similarly, themedia has a bigger impact onMEPs than with the other groups –no doubt because the media isimportant in influencing voters’opinions. Unsurprisingly, consti-tuency and local information hasby far the greatest impact on MEPs.

Please rate the following sources in terms of how helpful each one is in providingyou with what you need to make informed decisions in your work.

Helpfulness of Different Information Sources -Breakdown by EU Institution

Your staff

Your colleagues

Your personal research

Media

Industry representation

Constituency/local information

NGO representation

7.98.57.7

7.57.48.0

7.48.07.5

5.56.15.4

5.75.75.2

4.26.65.2

5.25.94.8

Not at all helpful Extremely helpful

European Commission

European Parliament

Member State Permanent Representation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO COMMUNICATE MESSAGES


For an EU decision-maker, a face-to-face meeting is the most impor-tant way in which he or she canreceive information. This is demons-trated unequivocally by the toprating of 7.1 decision-makersgive it.

Evening receptions and exhibitionsmay be important ways to createan awareness of a particular interestor organisation and its headlineissues, as well as to initiate relations-hips, but as ways to communicateinformation rate at only 4.5 and4.1 respectively. Only the distribu-

tion of DVDs and videos rates lowerfor an EU decision-maker, at 3.4.

There are important distinctionsbetween the three categories ofdecision-maker. For example, aCommission official is the mostenthusiastic for a meeting to secureinformation, followed by an MEPand then a Council official.

While written briefing material isof secondary importance to a mee-ting for all types of decision-makers, the Commission official isagain most enthusiastic for it, fol-

Decision-makers in the EU have a very clear view of the role and purposeof each event that is staged for their benefit by industry or NGOs.

Please rate each of the following on their level of importance in receiving information.

How is information best communicated to you?

Meeting

Written briefing material

Conference/seminar/workshops

Site visit

E-mail

Media

Dinner/lunch briefings

Breakfast briefings

Phone

Evening receptions

Exhibition

DVD/video

7.1

6.4

6.2

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.1

4.8

4.7

4.5

4.1

3.4

Not at all important Very important0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO COMMUNICATE MESSAGES


lowed again by the MEP andCouncil official.

When it comes to picking up thephone to transmit information, theCommission official will again behappiest to listen (5.2), the Councilofficial next (5.0), and the MEPmost disinclined to listen (3.8).

Even that event most treasured bysome lobbyists – the dinner orlunch briefing – only rates 5.1among decision-makers as a vehiclefor communicating information.In short, these events are more

than half way down the list ofimportance.

There is a lesson here for all whoseek to influence the EU. In themind of the EU decision-maker,exhibitions, receptions and otherforms of what are sometimes seenas casual lobbying play a differentrole. Receptions are for socialcontact and interaction, essentialin any polity or community.Meetings, written briefings, confe-rences, seminars, workshops andsite visits are for work – and are allat the top of the ranking.

Please rate each of the following on their level of importance in receiving information.

How is information best communicated to you -Breakdown by EU Institution

Meeting

Written briefing material

Conference/seminar/workshops

Site visit

E-mail

Media

Dinner/lunch briefings

Breakfast briefings

Phone

Evening receptions

Exhibition

DVD/video

7.37.16.8

6.96.46.0

6.66.06.0

6.35.55.4

5.86.05.1

5.25.65.5

4.85.15.5

4.54.94.9

5.23.85.0

4.04.64.9

3.94.53.7

4.03.33.0

Not at all important Very important

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS ARE NEARLY AS IMPORTANT AS THE FINANCIAL TIMES


For MEPs the Financial Times is notfar behind their own national new-spaper (7.5 and 7.9 respectively).Our findings again underscore howparliamentarians tend to look firstto their constituency or national andregional base. Likewise, officials inthe Council – ultimately responsibleto elected national ministers – rate

highly their own national newspaper,placing it second to the FinancialTimes.

For Commission decision-makers,whose role put simply is to think EU-wide, their own national newspaperranks much lower – 5.8 against 7.6for the Financial Times.

The BBC scores highly with theParliament and Commission whileAgence Europe, the daily newssource for Brussels’ insiders, scoreswell across the board and in parti-cular with decision-makers in theCouncil. Brussels’ weekly newspaperEuropean Voice also scores highly.

While the Financial Times is rated the best source of information onindustry for decision-makers in the Commission and Council, MEPsopt first for their own national newspaper.

Key sources of information on industry -Breakdown by EU Institution

What are your key sources of information on industry?

Financial Times

Own nationality national newspaper

Economist

BBC

Agence Europe

Le Monde

European Voice

International Herald Tribune

Online services

Wall Street Journal

CNN

Der Spiegel

Euractiv

European Report

El Pais

7.67.58.2

5.87.97.3

7.06.67.0

6.86.86.7

6.56.27.2

6.36.66.5

6.15.86.9

5.36.76.0

6.65.46.15.15.96.6

5.46.25.4

5.55.45.7

5.55.06.0

4.24.96.2

5.14.74.5

Not at all a good source Very good source0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS ARE NEARLY AS IMPORTANT AS THE FINANCIAL TIMES


Key sources of information on industry

On a scale of 1 – 10, what are your key sources of information on industry?

Financial Times

Own nationality national newspaper

Economist

BBC

Agence Europe

Le Monde

European Voice

International Herald Tribune

Online services

Wall Street Journal

CNN

Der Spiegel

Euractiv

European Report

El Pais

7.8

7.16.8 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.3

6.0 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.34.8

ENGLISH IS THE DOMINANT LANGUAGE IN THE EU

For the vast majority of the menand women at the top of the EU,English is now their second lan-guage. No less than 85 per cent ofthose questioned cited English astheir preferred choice if their ownlanguage was not available.

The size of the support for Englishno doubt follows the enlargementof the EU in 1995. This broughtin Sweden, Austria and Finlandand, coupled with the accession ofthe Central and Eastern Europeancountries and Cyprus and Malta in2004, ensured the dominance ofEnglish as the preferred secondlanguage.

Preferred second language

English

French

German

Other

85%

10%2%

3%

Very goodsource

Not a goodsource

10

8

6

4

2

0

Other than your own language, in which of the following three languages do you preferto receive information?

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

APPENDIX: SURVEY AND SAMPLE DETAILS


Country Composition

UKGermany

ItalyFrance

BelgiumAustriaIrelandFinland

SwedenNetherlands

DenmarkSpain

LuxembourgPortugal

LatviaPolandCyprus

Czech Rep.Estonia

SlovakiaGreece

HungaryLithuania

MaltaSlovenia

9%8%

8%7%7%7%7%

5%5%5%

4%4%

3%

3%3%

3%2%2%

2%2%

1%1%1%1%

1%

EU Institution Composition

Member States Permanent Representation

European Commission

European Parliament

33%34%

33%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15



Directorate-General CompositionEnvironment

Economic & Financial Affairs

Development

Health & Consumer Protection

Information Society

Energy & Transport

Enterprise

Research

Regional Policy

Employment & Social Affairs

Competition

Agriculture

Education & Culture

Internal Market

Trade

Other

18%

14%

10% 10%

8%

6% 6% 6% 6%

4% 4%

2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Council Formation CompositionEnvironment

Transport, Telecommunications & Energy

Competitiveness

Agriculture and Fisheries

Social Policy

Economic and Financial Affairs

General/External Affairs

Health and Consumer Affairs

Employment

Justice and Home Affairs

Education, Youth and Culture

Other

27%

18%16%

14%12%

8% 8% 8%6% 6%

4%

22%

20

15

10

5

0

40

30

10

10

0

A number of permanent representation officials questioned were a member of more than oneworking group.

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15



Political Group - Members of Parliament Composition

Verts/ALE

PSE

GUE/NGL

ALDE

PPE-DE

UEN

IND

4%

30%

6%

16%

28%

6%10%

Committee Membership - Members of Parliament Composition

Regional Policy, Transport & Tourism

Industry, External Trade, Research & Energy

Environment, Public Health & Consumer Policy

Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security& Defence

Economic & Monetary Affairs

Employment & Social Affairs

Constitutional Affairs

Budgets

Budgetary Control

Women’s Rights & Equal Opportunities

Legal Affairs & the Internal Market

Citizens' Freedoms & Rights,Justice & Home Affairs

Culture, Youth, Education,Media & Sport

Development & Co-operation

Fisheries

Agriculture & Rural Development

Other

24%

20% 20%

18%

16%

12% 12%

8% 8% 8% 8%

6% 6% 6%

4%

2% 2%

50

40

30

20

10

0

30

20

10

0

A number of MEPs questioned were a member of more than one committee.

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15



Sample Composition

Male

Female

80%

20%

Interview Language English

French

German81%

15%

4%

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15


Government RelationsPublic Affairs Campaigns

Corporate & Crisis Communications

Jeremy Galbraith, Chief Executive Tel: +32 2 743 66 11 Fax: +32 2 733 66 11 www.bmbrussels.be, www.bksh.com

Delivering the per fect mix...

Interest MobilisationMedia RelationsExpert OpinionAdvocacy AdvertisingInternet Campaigning

MonitoringIntelligence GatheringPolicy AuditsPolitical EventsLobbying

ABOUT US

Burson-Marsteller is a leading global public relations and public affairs company. Located in thepolitical and media centre of Europe, Burson-Marsteller Brussels specialises in Europe-wide publicaffairs campaigns. BKSH is the specialist government relations division of Burson-Marsteller.

Three things make us different from other consultancies: Our stable, senior team comprising 24 nationalities. Our integrated approach to public affairs. Our record of securing results that has led to long-standing relationships with loyal clients.

Burson ■Marsteller and BKSH

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:15

118 Avenue de Cortenbergh1000 Brussels

Tel: +32 (0)2 743 6611Fax: + 32 (0)2 733 6611

[email protected]

H2L 2005 3 14/06/05 10:16

Burson-Marsteller Report: The Definitive Guide to Lobbying the European Institutions

Documents

Transcript of Burson-Marsteller Report: The Definitive Guide to Lobbying the European Institutions