The European Union has long prided itself on being a project of democratic legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. Yet recent developments suggest that the institutional balance underpinning EU policymaking is shifting in ways that weaken democratic oversight and complicate the ability of businesses and public affairs professionals to shape legislation. Three trends stand out: the European Commission’s growing record of maladministration, the retreat of the European Parliament’s role, balanced with the growing role of member states, and the emergence of new alliances between those on the right and Eurosceptic politicians.
European Ombudsman cases of maladministration
Over the summer, the European Commission faced multiple inquiries from the European Ombudsman, which concluded that the Commission had bypassed its own Better Regulation guidelines when drafting proposals to cut red tape. The Ombudsman found “a number of procedural shortcomings” amounting to maladministration in how the Commission prepared reforms on supply chain transparency, agricultural funding, and migration.
The Ombudsman stressed that while urgency in policymaking may be justified in today’s geopolitical climate, accountability and transparency must remain central. Yet the Commission failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its “urgent” legislative shortcuts. This lack of transparency leaves stakeholders guessing about the real drivers of decision-making, with media reports often reduced to speculation. For example, claims that the EU’s anti-deforestation law was delayed due to U.S. pressure were revealed by the well-read Brussels-based media outlet Politico.
Civil society has increasingly turned to the ombudsman and courts to highlight maladministration, highlighting the erosion of trust in the Commission’s processes. For example, Access Info and foodwatch filed an action against the Commission with the General Court of the EU for refusing to disclose documents related to proposed front-of-pack nutrition labelling legislation. The legislation proposed in the Farm to Fork Strategy in 2020, disappeared from the agenda without any official explanations. Meanwhile, an ombudsman case into a reform of sustainability reporting rules brought by eight civil society organisations found the Commission guilty of neglecting minimum procedural standards. For businesses, this means less predictability and fewer opportunities to engage meaningfully in consultations or impact assessments: tools that once provided a structured way to influence EU law.
Is the role of the European Parliament retreating?
The European Parliament, once heralded by the Lisbon Treaty as the embodiment of direct EU citizen representation, appears to be losing ground. The Council has taken a more assertive role in shaping policy, often pushing to simplify or delay legislation mandated in previous terms. Meanwhile, trilogues – closed-door interinstitutional negotiations between the Parliament, Commission, and Council – have become the driving forces of policy-shaping. These opaque processes lack transparency, leaving stakeholders and citizens in the dark about how compromises are reached.
This retreat of parliamentary influence raises questions about whether the EU is backsliding on its democratic commitments. For public affairs professionals, it signals that traditional engagement with MEPs may no longer be sufficient to shape outcomes, as real power increasingly lies elsewhere.
New Alliances Between the Right and Far-Right in Parliament
Another worrying trend is the breakdown of the cordon sanitaire that once kept Eurosceptic parties isolated. In a vote on the Omnibus Package I – aimed at simplifying sustainability rules under the European Green Deal – centrist parties cooperated with far-right groups such as the newly formed Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations. These groups, which include MEPs from Germany’s AfD, Spain’s Vox, and France’s National Rally, no longer seek outright exits from the Union but instead aim to weaken its competencies and fragment its authority.
This shift complicates the Commission’s efforts to maintain a unified internal market. Eurosceptic MEPs and member states are increasingly resistant to ceding legislative power to Brussels, preferring to retain control at the national level. For businesses, this means greater uncertainty about the consistency of EU-wide rules and the risk of fragmented regulatory landscapes.
Why this matters for businesses and civil society
For both business and civil society stakeholders, these institutional shifts are more than abstract debates. They directly affect how influence can be exercised in Brussels:
- Reduced transparency and accountability in Commission decision-making limits the effectiveness of traditional consultation and evidence-based advocacy.
- Weakened parliamentary oversight means lobbying MEPs alone is no longer enough; influence must prioritise the Council and Commission.
- Fragmented alliances in Parliament create unpredictable voting dynamics, complicating long-term planning for industries reliant on EU-wide regulation.
The lesson is clear: engaging early, strategically, and with the right actors is more critical than ever. Businesses must adapt their public affairs strategies to a landscape where power is concentrated in fewer hands, decisions are made behind closed doors, and political alliances are shifting rapidly. Identifying the real decision-makers, often within the Commission or influential member states, and voicing concerns in the right forums will be key to safeguarding sectoral interests in this evolving EU democracy.
by Zoé Choulika, Account Manager
The Whitehouse team are expert political consultants providing public relations and public affairs advice and political analysis to a wide range of clients, not only in the United Kingdom, but also across the member states of the European Union and beyond. For more information, please contact our Chair, Chris Whitehouse, at chris.whitehouse@whitehousecomms.com