The results of the Burson-Marsteller 2009 Lobbying Survey

Methodology of the survey 50 interviews in Brussels and 30 interviews were completed in: Austria, Czech, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Spain and UK. Audience definitions comprised of these criteria: Senior decision makers in Government or civil service occupation Interact with lobbyists very often, quite often or occasionally Very or somewhat high interest in current affairs The interviews were undertaken by PSB through a mixture of online, phone and face to face interviews. Dates of fieldwork: October 2008– July 2009

What would best describe a lobbyist? ALLATCZDEDKFIFRGRHUITNLNOPLSEESUKEU TRADE ASSOCIATION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AGENCIES NGOs TRADE UNIONS COMPANIES THINK TANKS Individuals/In dependent LAW FIRMS

Who are the lobbyists? The most recognised lobbyists overall are: o 61% : Trade associations (Germany 58%) o 57% : Public affairs agencies (Germany 58%) o 50% : NGOs (Germany 45%) Recognition for these top categories of lobbyist is highest in Nordic, Austria and Brussels and generally low for most categories of lobbyist in France, Hungary and Spain. A Brussels particularity: 56% of respondents deem lawyers as lobbyists starkly contrasting with the overall 24% (Germany 35%)

What are the positive aspects of lobbying? National respondents mostly viewed lobbyist as a means to raise local and national issues with a 50% average o This peaks in Germany ( 74% ), the UK ( 72% ) and Italy ( 70% ) Providing information at the right time peaks in Germany ( 65%) By contrast to Brussels, the top positive aspects of lobbying are perceived as: o Sharing expertise : 60% (Germany 61%) o Ensuring the that technical information is made intelligible: 58% (48%) o Lobbying is a constructive part of the democratic process: 52% (48%) Compared to a 48% EU average, only 3% of Polish respondents see lobbying as a constructive part of the democratic process

What are the negative aspects of lobbying? Overall across Europe, lobbying is seen to be lacking transparency ( 57% ) (G 65%) and not providing neutral information ( 55% ) (G 65%) 90% of Poles see lack of transparency as a major problem of lobbying (Germany 65%) o Figures collected in Brussels are in line with the overall average In striking contrast to the overall 23% average, 58% of German regulators and politicians see lobbying as exerting an undue influence on the democratic process

How transparent are lobbyists? NGOs received higher ratings in Northern European countries (e.g in Norway and 8.19 in Denmark) and Brussels (7.6) (Germany 6.8) Brussels regulators and politicians largely share this view, with companies being seen as most transparent (7.96) (Germany 8.0) In Brussels (and generally across Europe), public affairs agencies (5.71) (Germany 6.3) are seen as somewhat more transparent than law firms (5.33) (Germany 5.45)

What influences you to speak to a lobbyist? Transparency is, as in the countries surveyed, one of the main factors rating at 69% (Germany 74%) The survey highlights that the Brussels respondents are most willing to speak to a lobbyist when the topic is in their field of expertise ( 73% ) (Germany 71%) or if it interests them ( 71% ) (Germany 55%) Lobbiysts need to be particulary well prepared in Germany (71%) avg 40% Listing on a register is a factor in deciding to speak to a lobbyist for only 29% (Germany 29%) of Brussels regulators and politicians. This contrast with an overall average low figure of 19% across Europe. This factor rates highest in Italy ( 50% ) where there is currently no public registry for lobbyists.

Which are the most effective lobbyist? The ranking differs slightly for Brussels were NGOs rank third with 6.42 Public Affairs agencies effectiveness peaks in Austria (6,72) and Germany (6,61%) All categories of lobbyists in the Netherlands are perceived as less effective with rates ranging from 4.68 for trade unions to 3.32 for companies Scale of 1 to 10

Effectiveness of lobbying: Industry vs. NGO

Poor practices frequently commited by Industry & NGOs

Which sources are used to make a decision? An overwhelming 95% of respondents find that their best source is their own research, with peaks at 100% in six countries The next source of information identified are: o 93% : Colleagues o 90% : Their staff o 89% : National public authorities o 87% : Internet Overall, 76% of the respondents find that the European institutions are a helpful source of information o Interestingly the highest score for the European institutions is in Poland ( 97% ) and Italy ( 94% ), then followed shortly behind by Brussels respondents ( 92% ) NGOs come last as a source of information with 60%

How best to best provide information Overall meetings are seen by half of the respondents as the most efficient manner to communicate information. This is followed by site visits ( 41% ) and written briefing material ( 35% ) (Germany 48%) o Respondents in Poland ( 77% ), Germany ( 68% ) and Hungary ( 67% ) found meetings was the most efficient manner to receive information o Site visits are particular popular in Norway ( 60% ) (Germany 55 %) o and phone contacts rank far below (Germany 23/13%)

Key Findings for Germany German politicians look for a critical exchange with Lobbyists Lobbying seen as positive in terms of raising the importance of an issue ( 74% ), and sharing expertise ( 61% ) compared to a 50% and 47% European average By far the greatest concerns that lobbying can represent an undue influence on the democratic process ( 58% compared to a 23% European average) Transparency and objective information are vital 65% of German respondents see lobbying negatively when it lacks transparency and question the neutrality of lobbyists The receptivity of German regulators to speaking with a lobbyist depends greatly on how well the lobbyist has prepared his case ( 71 % ; European average 40%)