es.euronews.com
EU Lobbying Spending Hits €343 Million, Raising Transparency Concerns
Analysis reveals that the 162 largest EU companies and trade associations spent €343 million on lobbying in 2024-2025—a 13% increase—with polluting industries showing significant growth. This highlights the need for stricter regulations and greater transparency.
- Which sectors saw the largest increases in lobbying spending, and what are the likely reasons behind these increases?
- The increase reflects intensified lobbying around the European Green Deal, with polluting industries (energy and agrochemical) increasing spending by 44% and 31% respectively over five years. This is particularly concerning given the upcoming Clean Industrial Pact and deregulation push. The analysis also shows that some industry groups hold more parliamentary passes than MEPs, highlighting potential regulatory capture.
- What policy changes are needed to enhance transparency and prevent undue influence in EU policymaking, given the current lobbying landscape?
- The EU needs to expand lobbying restrictions beyond the tobacco industry to areas like climate regulation. A legally binding lobby register with sanctions for inaccurate data is crucial to improve transparency and prevent regulatory capture. This is especially important with significant new legislation and increased industry lobbying.
- What is the total amount spent by the top 162 companies and trade associations on lobbying EU officials in the last year, and how does this compare to previous years?
- In 2024-2025, the EU's 162 largest companies and trade associations spent €343 million lobbying legislators and officials, a 13% annual increase and nearly a third more than in 2020. This figure is conservative as only entities spending over €1 million are required to disclose lobbying budgets. Tech giants like Meta (€9 million) and Microsoft (€7 million) were among the top spenders.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introductory paragraph immediately emphasize the significant financial investment in lobbying by large corporations. This sets a negative tone, framing corporate lobbying as inherently problematic. The use of terms like "pressure" and "intense lobbying" further reinforces this negative framing. While the report acknowledges some counterarguments, the overall narrative structure heavily emphasizes the potential for negative influence.
Language Bias
The report uses terms such as "pressure," "intense lobbying," and "contaminantes" (polluting industries), which carry negative connotations. The description of corporate lobbying as "giving its fruits" implies a corrupt or self-serving process. More neutral terms like "advocacy," "engagement," or "influence" could be used to present a more balanced perspective. The repeated focus on financial spending might unintentionally frame the issue solely in financial terms, neglecting other aspects of influence.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the spending of large corporations and associations, potentially omitting the influence of smaller lobbying groups or individual lobbyists. The impact of public opinion and citizen activism is also not explicitly addressed, creating an incomplete picture of the lobbying landscape. While acknowledging limitations of the transparency register, the report doesn't delve into potential workarounds or indirect lobbying tactics that might be used to circumvent disclosure requirements.
False Dichotomy
The report presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between well-funded corporate lobbyists and the need for stricter regulations. It doesn't fully explore the potential benefits of corporate lobbying, such as providing valuable expertise to policymakers, or consider alternative regulatory approaches that might balance corporate influence with public interest. The framing implies that all corporate lobbying is inherently negative, neglecting the possibility of constructive engagement.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that industries are spending large sums of money lobbying the EU, hindering efforts towards sustainable practices. The increase in lobbying by polluting industries, like energy and agrochemicals, directly opposes the goals of responsible consumption and production, potentially leading to environmental damage and unsustainable practices.