The Transparency Register: a giant with feet of clay?
The purpose of the EU Transparency Register is to publish the interest groups with whom the EU institutions interact, listing the financial and human resources such groups dedicate to their activities. By monitoring the interactions between interest representatives and the EU institutions, this public database has over the years contributed to fostering a culture of transparency in the EU. Anyone can access it anywhere at any time. Since its creation in the early 1990s, the register has gone through continuous metamorphosis to try to keep up with the times.
Although it looks strong on paper, the Transparency Register is a fragile tool. It is as accurate as registrants decide it to be.
For instance, since 2021 the European Parliament, Commission, and Council have a joint transparency register which is the one-stop-shop of interest representation at the EU level. Any lobbyist who wants to interact directly with decision-makers of the three EU institutions must register. When signing up, all registrants must also abide by a Code of Conduct. For example, one rule is to always indicate their registration number and the entity or entities they work for or represent. With more than 12,400 registrants in 2024, the EU Transparency Register is, with its counterparts in North America, among the largest.
Although it looks strong on paper, the Transparency Register is a fragile tool. It is as accurate as registrants decide it to be. It also heavily depends on the Secretariat’s willingness and capacity to conduct the necessary checks. In 2022, it reported 4,238 targeted quality checks. Despite these efforts, inaccurate entries continue to pollute the database. In 2022, two civil society organisations denounced that 76% of the top lobbyist entries were inaccurate.
Opaque lobbying practices against the Nutri-Score
In July 2022, we shared our concerns to the Secretariat of the Transparency Register over two listed entities: the No-Nutriscore Alliance and Brussels-based consultancy Must & Partners. We suspected a breach of the Code of Conduct as both entities failed to disclose properly their relationship, the interests they represented, and their sources of funding.
Back then, the European Union was making up its mind over which front-of-pack label should end up on food products across Europe. So we considered it unfair that vested interests could hide behind an obscure messenger to push their opposition to Nutri-Score with EU decision-makers. The Commission services were already the target of heavy behind-the-scenes industry influence as we exposed recently, so at least these Nutri-Score opponents should not wear masks and play by the EU’s transparency rules.
The Secretariat then opened two investigations. After limited exchanges with the two entities leading to marginal updates on the Register, the Secretariat closed its investigations. Needless to say, we were dissatisfied that the Secretariat handled our complaint in a very summary way. So we brought the matter to the European Ombudsman.
The Transparency Register can do better
After several months of investigations, the Ombudsman concluded early February 2024 that the way the Secretariat handled our complaint did amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman made clear that several pieces of information brought by the two registrants should have raised the Secretariat’s eyebrows and triggered them to further investigate.
Boosting the Secretariat’s capacity will however be the price to pay is the EU is serious about making the tool truly reliable.
For example, the No-Nutriscore Alliance declared it had neither members nor affiliates but still indicated that other entities provided them ‘assistance’ on an ad-hoc basis. Still, the Transparency Register Secretariat did not see this as suspicious and did not follow up. According to the Ombudsman, it was undisputed that the same person had founded and managed both entities and that both engaged in lobbying activities towards the EU institutions in the same area of interest. The link between both entities was undeniable and the Register should have reflected this more clearly.
Up next: making the EU Transparency Register meaningful
By the time the Ombudsman issued its decision in February 2024, the No-Nutriscore Alliance had disappeared from the EU Transparency Register. The consequence of this decision will therefore mainly concern the future of the Register. In this respect, the Ombudsman made several recommendations to give the monitoring of the Register more teeth.
First, the Secretariat should conduct a thorough and meaningful investigation. This includes asking registrants extra information and where necessary verify the information from independent and/or public sources. Second, the EU Ombudsman recommends clarifying the concept of ‘affiliates’ to ensure that it captures all elements of registrants’ activities, not just the ones they are willing to disclose.
Making these recommendations and rolling them out will certainly be no easy task for a small Secretariat limited staff available. In 2022, the Secretariat staff amounted to 10 full-time employees. Boosting the Secretariat’s capacity will however be the price to pay is the EU is serious about making the tool truly reliable. The intervention of the European Ombudsman will also contribute to the ongoing discussions on the necessity to review the Transparency Register. They will notably fuel the European Court of Auditors’ special report – underway – which will assess the effectiveness of the EU Transparency Register for shedding light on lobbying activities.
Our complaint may only be one of the numerous building blocks of a stronger EU Transparency Register. It took us resources and patience, but it was worth it. To be continued…
ENDS