R.W. Looze S1912798 MSc Public Administration: International and European Governance Leiden University Supervisor: Dr. B. Fraussen Second reader: Dr. J. Christensen
EXPLORING THE CONSULTATION
STRATEGY OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
MSc thesis on the European Commission’s use of consultation
instruments in the context of the EU Work Plan for Sport
Table of Contents
Abstract
2
Introduction
3
Theoretical Framework
7
Research Methods
16
Analysis
18
Conclusion
30
Annex I: interviewees
33
Annex II: Interview outline
34
Annex III: List of European Week of Sport Partners
35
Annex IV: List of Expert Group members
36
Abstract
The legitimacy of the European Union is a constant challenge for the European institutions and a highly topical issue for political debate. The widely used consultation instruments might provide a solution, as they can ensure not only the best but also the most widely supported policy outcomes. As of now however, academic research has limited its focus on consultation to best practices for lobby organisations and lacked focus on the opportunities it can provide in gathering expertise and legitimacy. Based on an in-depth analysis of
consultation documents, combined with interviews with public officials and stakeholders, this thesis examines the consultation instruments used by the European Commission and the effects of these instruments on the diversity of stakeholders. Looking at the three major dimensions of consultation instruments - participation, communication and authority – the analysis reveals mixed results: while the European Commission was successful in filling the knowledge gap with the consultation instruments, the diversity of stakeholders in general is lower than expected and the Commission lacks a general strategy and knowledge of the effects of the instruments on the diversity of stakeholders.
Introduction
Policy makers in the European Union, arguably more than any other, face a twin challenge when designing public policy. In order to generate the best and most widely supported policy outcomes, they are expected to acquire relevant expertise and at the same time gain legitimacy (Turnhout et al., 2015, Popelier, 2011 & Clerck-Sachsse, 2012). Policy makers in the European Union face highly technical policy areas that require expertise. They also face very divided political spectra at the moment that makes it vital for its success to gain legitimacy at the same time. Choosing for an expertise-based decision-making system can however result in decisions against the will of the majority of the people. And we go against our ideas of legitimacy if the decision is something less democratic. But choosing for rule by the people is not feasible in some technical areas. Both expertise and legitimacy are needed by policy makers in the European Union to come to the right decision.
The efforts of the European Union to consult actively and widely can result in both relevant expertise and legitimacy if done right. In theory, consulting a good representation of the population and the best experts will results in the best and most widely supported policy outcomes. In practice however, consulting for expertise can also reinforce inequalities in political participation and thus a lower legitimacy. At the same time, the efforts to gain more legitimacy can lower the relevant expertise acquired through the consultation of the
European Union. Tackling this challenge has been a focus point of the European Commission that they have tried to overcome for example by implementing the Better Regulation
Package (European Commission, 2015).
With this challenge in mind it is interesting to look at the way public institutions themselves engage with non-state actors and the influence this has on public policy. The fundamental underlaying question that remains unanswered is in what way EU policy consultation can contribute to the acquiring of relevant expertise as well as gain legitimacy. Diversity is necessary for the legitimacy of any representative democracy. This also accounts for the group of consultation stakeholders; in order to provide the right legitimacy and expertise, this group has to be diverse to be representative of the population the institution represents and in order to contribute with new ways of thinking, new knowledge, and different
experiences.
Academic research so far has limited its focus to only the perspective of the (lobby)
organisations and how they can increase their influence on public policy. This research tries to turn focus to how the European Commission can solve the twin challenge of policy makers, by taking control of the diversity of consultation stakeholders provides input. The next chapter will explore the state of the art and how this research will contribute to the existing literature on this topic.
State of the art
The governance of the European Union lacks democratic legitimacy, and scientific research on how to remedy this differ. Making the European Union more transparent and
shows that the topic of this thesis is of great importance to at least the European Commission itself, and all organisations that are related to European policymaking.
In order to research the ways in which the democratic legitimacy can be improved, expertise and legitimacy are important. As stated above however, these two concepts are not easy to combine via consultations.
Given the huge range and high complexity of issues that are considered by the European Commission, relevant expertise from reliable sources are of great importance (Rimkutė & Haverland, 2015 & De Bruycker, 2016). The European Commission for example needs relevant expertise in order to develop a regulatory framework in a complex environment of European dimensions for all kinds of protected job titles. It cannot be expected from a public institution to have this expertise themselves, so reliable sources need to be consulted. For example, the personal trainer title and qualifications all have their own European
Qualification Framework that are developed in consultation with an independent standards council in relation to Standards for People, Programmes and Places across the Health and Fitness sector (EuropeActive Standards, 2015).
Equally important when designing public policy is the legitimacy of the European policymaking process. Legitimacy provides the European Commission reason to exist, without the recognition of the majority of the population the institution is far less recognised and valid (Essays, UK, 2013). The European Commission needs legitimacy, otherwise its public policy will not be accepted by the people, and eventually member states. For example, if the European Union decides to set a standard for the personal trainer title, it needs to be accepted by the majority of the population in order for it to take effect. Combining both expertise and legitimacy is not easy to do for policy makers in the European Union via consultations. It can be said that there is a trade-off between expertise and
legitimacy, where if the one increases the other decreases (Cotei & Farhat, 2009). In order to increase expertise, the European Commission could go to the leading Expert Group or
organisation to gain the relevant knowledge. This would however decrease the legitimacy, as only a very small portion of the population is being heard. On the other hand, increasing legitimacy, the European Commission could ask the entire population for their input to gain legitimacy. This would however decrease the relevant expertise from reliable sources, as every single (unreliable) opinion has to be considered.
A balanced approach of consultation has to be found to acquire both relevant expertise and at the same time gain legitimacy (Turnhout et al., 2015, Popelier, 2011 & Clerck-Sachsse, 2012). This research will look at the effects that the choices of the European Commission in the consultation process have on the expertise and legitimacy, in order to find this balance and how the European Commission could achieve this.
Research question
Why does the European Commission decide to use Expert Groups and High Level Groups for one policy area and online/public consultation for another? How does this choice shape the diversity of stakeholders that provide input? And how does this help address the twin
challenge faced by the European Union policy makers? This thesis will discuss the choices of consultation instruments that the European Commission make and how these shape the diversity of stakeholders that provide input. The research question of the master thesis will therefore be:
How does the choice of consultation instruments by the European Commission
shape the diversity of stakeholders that provide input?
Relevance of the research question
The size of the European Commission is so enormous, and the frequency in which they use consultation is so high, that one would expect the organisation to have a general strategy or policy when it comes to their use of consultation supporting their work. In reality however, there is not a separate department that supports the rest of the organisation with
experience or knowledge of the consultation instruments, there are no documents informing the organisation’s departments of the effects of the various consultation instruments and there is no general strategy that prescribes a certain package of instruments in certain cases. In general, it is still unclear to the European Commission what the strengths and weaknesses are of the various consultation instruments available. This research question will identify these strengths and weaknesses in terms of their effect on the expertise and legitimacy they provide to the European Commission.
These results are of great value to various institutions and organisations. To the European Commission this overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the consultation instruments lets the institutions make more sustained decisions on their consultation instruments. The institution knows about the effects of the chosen consultation instruments, already before implementing. And can therefore already implement other consultation instruments or decisions to tackle these weaknesses, and make sure that they balance the gathered expertise and gained legitimacy.
The results will also be useful to (lobby) organisations to base their (lobby) strategy on. Based on their goals and limited resources, the most effective consultation instruments can be identified for an organisation to best respond to and what consultation instruments will be less useful for them to invest resources in given their goal.
Theoretically, this research is interesting because it will look at the way public institutions themselves engage with non-state active and the influence this has on public policy. So far, existing scholarship on effective stakeholder engagement focused only on the role of non-state actors influencing public policy and not the role public institutions play in this. This research will contribute to the field of stakeholder engagement, the role of the public institution, in this case the European Commission, and the effect that this has on the gathered expertise and gained legitimacy.
Structure of the master thesis
The structure of this master thesis is as follows. The next chapter will discuss the existing academic knowledge on participation and consultation instruments, put these in the context
of the European Commission and formulate hypothesis based on the existing academic knowledge. The third chapter will justify the unit of analysis and research design, operationalise the theoretical concepts and discuss the reliability and validity of the
measures. The fourth chapter will analyse the data and present the findings of the research. The fifth chapter will generalise these findings and describe the implications thereof for the academic debate and for society. The last chapter will discuss how the results are a
contribution to the study, identify and discuss any limitations and recommend future research flowing from the findings.
Theoretical framework
The introduction outlined the main benefits for the Commission and other public interest organisations to gain better understanding of the effects of consultation instruments. In the theoretical framework these benefits are discussed in more detail; discussing the existing academical knowledge on consultation and formulating hypothesis. This is done by studying the theories on participation and consultation instruments in more detail and putting them in the context of the European Commission. The theoretical framework also discusses these theories in the context of the Better Regulation Package; the guidelines that the European Commission must follow when preparing new initiatives and proposals containing detailed advice on how to consult stakeholders (European Commission, 2015).
This chapter is based on three important participation dimensions that capture the range of studies in the consultation process of the European Commission. The variables are
respectively scope of participation, mode of communication and extent of authority. Each section will discuss one variable that are then used to indicate the differences between the consultation instruments.
According to Fung (2006), there are three important dimensions to be considered when looking at participation in contemporary democracy. His framework helps understand the range of institutional possibilities for public participation. This framework will help to define the differences between the consultation instruments and its effect on the diversity of stakeholders, required to answer the research question. And is used to structure the rest of this section before introducing the various consultation methods available to the European Commission.
Variation in consultation instruments
This chapter will highlight the major differences between consultation methods available to the European Commission in accordance with the three dimensions of Fung’s (2006)
framework. The first dimension is that of the scope of participation, who participates in the consultation.
Scope of participation
There are five common selection mechanisms for participation such as consultation by the European Commission: completely open public participation, selectively recruited
participants, randomly selected participants, lay stakeholders and professional stakeholders (Fung, 2006). They have a different level of including representatives and can be placed on a scale from more exclusive to more inclusive, as shown in figure 1.
More exclusive More inclusive Figure 1: Participant selection methods (Fung, 2006)
As the name suggests completely open public participation is open to anyone that wishes to participate, such as online consultation. Selectively recruited participants are targeted subgroups that are asked to participate. This can be for example people with lower than average income that live in a city in the Netherlands. Randomly selected participants are taken from the general population by pure chance and given the option to participate. Lay stakeholders are individuals or organisations with a deep understanding of a specific topic, asked to participate on that topic occasionally. This group could be for example a professor that is an expert in the field of public data protection. Lastly, professional stakeholders are asked to participate on a frequent basis.
Depending on their goals and how inclusive or exclusive they would like to organise their consultation, the European Commission can decide what participant selection method will be most suited and thus what the scope of consultation is for this policy. The Commission’s use of participant selection method currently depends on the complexity, newness and salience of a proposal (Ballaert, 2015).
Ballaert (2015) shows that the participant selection method of an Expert Group in policy formulation is only asked for participation in preparing 33.5% of the proposals. Directorate General’s, the departments of the European Commission, were significantly more likely to use an Expert Group when the proposal proposes a policy that is complex or standard-setting. On the other hand, the salience of a proposal was not significantly related to the European Commission involving an Expert Group in the consultation process.
In a more recent article, Ballaert (2017) proves that the participant selection method depends on the scope of a policy and newness. The scope of a policy makes it that a single Expert Group or meeting with interest representatives will not be enough to provide with enough information. Therefore, the bigger the scope of a policy, the more diverse
stakeholders will be required to fill the knowledge gap and the more inclusive the
participant selection method will be. The newness of a policy makes it that a single Expert Group or meeting with interest representatives will not give enough legitimacy to the new policy. Therefore, the newer a policy, the more diverse stakeholders will be required to legitimise and the more inclusive the participant selection method will be.
Pro fe ss io na l st ake ho ld er s La y st ake ho ld er s Ra nd om ly s el ec ted pa rt ic ipa nt s Se le ct ive ly re cr ui te d pa rt ic ipa nt s O pe n/ on lin e publ ic pa rt ic ipa tio n
Mode of communication
The second dimension that Fung (2006) identified is the mode of communication, how participants interact within the consultation setting. There are six ways that the participants of above identified participation methods can communicate with the other participants and the European Commission itself. This can also be put on a scale from least intense to most intense (figure 2). Where intensity is seen as the level of commitment of the participants during the consultation.
Least intense Most intense
Figure 2: Modes of communication (Fung, 2006, p.69)
On a scale of communication, the intensity in which the consultation participants
communicate is put apart in six categories. The least intense is listen as spectator. Followed by express preferences, develop preferences, aggregate and bargain, deliberate and
negotiate and lastly the most intense deploy technique and expertise. Extent of authority
The third and last dimension that Fung (2006) identified is the extent of authority, how the participation of an organisation or individual is linked to the actions of the European Commission. On a scale of authority, the influence on policy or action is put apart in five categories. The least authority is that of participants consulting for personal benefits. The next categories are those of communicative influence, advise and consult, co-governance and lastly, the most authority, from the category of direct authority.
Least authority Most authority Figure 3: Extent of authority (Fung, 2006)
Li st en a s sp ec ta to r Ex pr es s pr ef er en ce s De ve lo p pr ef er en ce s Ag gr eg at e a nd b ar ga in De lib er at e an d ne go tia te De pl oy te ch ni qu e an d ex per tis e Pe rs on al b en ef its Co m m un ic at iv e in flu en ce Ad vic e a nd c on su lt Co -go ve rn an ce Di re ct a ut ho rit y
Some interest groups express more policy preferences than others during consultations organised by the European Commission (Bunea, 2014). In the area of environmental policy-making, Bunea found that the organisational form is a good predictor of having influence on the eventual policy proposed by the European Commission. In consultations, European federations have more chance of influence than national or individual organizations. This means that the organisations that provide (relevant) input is limited to only a small part of all organisations.
Another predictor is the organisational linkages that organisations have. More inter-organisational linkages will result in more input during consultations organised by the
European Commission. Signalling an old boys network, of a small group of actors that always participate in consultations.
Consultation of stakeholders at the EU level
The European Commission has the right of initiative, making the institution responsible for planning, preparing and proposing new European legislation (European Commission, 2018). All individuals and organisations who may be affected can have their say in the process, such as citizens, businesses, civil society, public authorities, or any other stakeholder. In the context of the Better Regulation Package, the Commission has to prepare laws and policies in a transparent manner based on evidence and backed up by the views of all those who may be affected (European Commission, 2015). The Commission does that by using consultation instruments to gain evidence and be backed up, or as formulated above: expertise and legitimacy.
There are various opportunities and phases where people can contribute to new European legislations (Quittkat & Finke, 2008). Feedback can be given through open public
consultations and other online tools. The Commission may also seek expertise targeting (professional) stakeholder groups through, for example: Conferences, Expert Groups, Expert seminars, Policy forums, Meetings, Workshops or Small-business panels.
These can be categorised in the following forms of consultation (Fung, 2006):
Consultation form Examples
Open/online public consultation Open public consultations, Online tools Conferences & workshops Conferences & workshops
Direct meetings Meetings with interest representatives
Expert groups Expert Groups, Expert seminars
Figure 4: Forms of consultation of stakeholders at the EU level
Open/online public consultation
Open/online public consultation are the consultations that are announced on the internet to seek for the public’s input on matters that are affecting them. It is a means to improve the efficiency, transparency and also wide public involvement (OECD, 2006). Because the open/online public consultation is open for any interested individual or organisation to participate, we can assume that each party has equal chance of participating, even though
resources play a vital part in the actual access. Yet, critics argue that despite the open nature of the consultation form, the instrument still mostly attracts business interest
representatives (Boussaguet & Dehousse, 2008). Meaning that the diversity of the
organisations that are consulted would not improve from using open/online consultation. Zooming in on the inclusiveness of online consultation, Quittkat (2011) found that this consultation form enhances the involvement of a larger group and more diverse set of stakeholders, however are not as inclusive as hoped for by the European Commission. Quittkat (2011) analysed the participation in open/online public consultation by actor group. The diversity of actors using the open/online public consultation is not as high as expected. In fact, the influence of civil society is as low as with other consultation forms, and industry is dominating the access to consultation. Business associations and companies represent over 80% of all participation in open/online consultation.
A positive note however is that policy activities across policy fields attracted a different group of specific community actors (Quittkat, 2011). Meaning that the actors other than the business associations and companies are very diverse and specifically interested in the topic when it comes to open/online public consultation.
Conferences & workshops
The European Commission also uses conferences & workshops to seek for input on matters that are affecting the public. The Commission asks the stakeholders to engage into
discussions and aims to share good practices as well as develop shared concrete actions. These conferences can be open to anyone or for a specific group of stakeholders. The diversity of the actors that participate in the consultation can vary depending on the nature and theme of the conference. In general, it is expected that the inclusivity is not as high as hoped for and business associations and companies dominate the conference for the same reasons as they dominate the open/online public consultation.
Direct meetings
Direct meetings are more specific meetings between for example the Sport Ministers and the Commission. In that case, the diversity of participation will be just Sport Ministers of the various Member States. The direct meetings can however also consist of conferences for a very selective group of stakeholders. Because this consultation form is by invite only, we can assume that mostly well-known business interest representatives and companies
participate. Meaning that the diversity of the organisations that are consulted in direct meetings is not high but rather really low.
Expert groups
Expert Groups are consultative entities comprised of representatives of Member States and other public or private sector experts. The Commission leads the Expert Groups and is in charge for the composition. On paper the Expert Groups are tasked with the assistance of the Commission as a whole, in practice however the Expert Groups are run by one DG and involved in only one relevant field (Gornitzka & Sverdrup, 2008). This makes it more likely
that the groups consist of experts on a very specific topic but at the same time are able to assist the Commission as a whole. To be most useful to the Commission, Expert Groups consist of actors that have great amounts of resources and a broad interest field (Egeberg, 2006). Because organisations are chosen based upon their sectoral expertise but also abilities to adapt to other topics, the expert groups most likely consist of a large amount of business associations and companies (Egeberg, 2006).
In general, societal actors are averagely represented in the Expert Groups, with around 40% of the Expert Groups featuring societal actors (Gornitzka & Sverdrup, 2015). The overall pattern of civil society inclusion however is really heterogenous, to the extent to which the Commission is selectively open for the participation of societal actors in the Expert Group consultation (Gornitzka & Sverdrup, 2015). This makes is hard to make expectations on the diversity of a certain Expert Group and can vary from high diversity to low diversity.
Scoring of the consultation forms
Now that the different forms of consultation of stakeholders at the EU level have been identified, it is interesting to look at these forms score on the 3 participation dimensions making use of the theoretical framework of Fung. This has been done by placing the consultation forms in the 3 figures of Fung (2006) and then by scoring each consultation form low, average or high on the 3 participation dimensions. The consultation forms have been placed in figures 5, 6 and 7 an overview of the scores in figure 8. According to the theory, the consultation forms score as follows on the 3 participation dimensions:
More exclusive More inclusive
Figure 5: Participant selection methods (in the context of the European Commission)
In figure 5, it is clear that the Expert Groups are the most exclusive of the four researched consultation forms. Direct meetings are slightly less exclusive, while conferences & workshops are more inclusive and open/online public consultation is most inclusive.
Ex pe rt G ro up s Di re ct m ee tin gs Co nf er en ce s & w or ks ho ps Op en /o nl in e pu bl ic con su lta tion
Least intense Most intense
Figure 6: Modes of communication (in the context of the European Commission)
Figure 6 shows that open/online public consultation has the least intense communication followed by conferences & workshops. More intense communication is found in direct meetings and even more in Expert Groups.
Open/online public consultations Conferences & workshops
Direct meetings Expert Groups
Least authority most authority Figure 7: Extent of authority (in the context of the European Commission)
The data in figure 7 shows that open/online public consultation has a low extent of authority, reaching up to communicative influence. Even though the conferences & workshops offer slightly more influence, the extent of authority is still only up to communicative influence. Direct meetings and Expert Groups offer the consultation participants the authority up to advice and consult.
Pe rs on al b en ef its Co m m un ic at iv e in flu en ce Ad vic e a nd c on su lt Co -go ve rn an ce Di re ct a ut ho rit y Op en /o nl in e pu bl ic con su lta tion Co nf er en ce s & w or ks ho ps Di re ct m ee tin gs Ex pe rt G ro up s
Participation dimensions
Consultation form Inclusivity of participant selection method
Intensity of
communication The extent of authority Open/online public
consultation High Low Low
Conferences & workshops High Average Average
Direct meetings Average High Average
Expert groups Low High High
Figure 8: Scores of the forms of stakeholder consultation at the EU level on the 3 dimensions
As the figures show, the open/online public consultation scores high on the inclusivity of participant selection method. Meaning that using open/online public participation methods the diversity of organisations participating will be high. Strengthening this view, the extent of authority is low, which according to the theory also signals a more diverse group of stakeholders that provide input.
Looking at the conferences & workshops, this category also scores high on the inclusivity of participant selection method. This also assumes a high diversity of organisations
participating in the consultation. On the other hand, the extent of authority is higher than with open/online public consultation, which can mean a less diverse group of stakeholders that provide input. The intensity of communication is also less high (average) in comparison to the open/online public consultation, which also creates the expectation that the diversity of the stakeholders will be lower.
For direct meetings, the intensity of communication is high. The agenda and procedures of the meetings are open for debate, stimulating the intensity of communication. This is only done by the European Commission with trusted stakeholders, meaning that the diversity of organisations will be low for this category of consultation. The inclusivity of participants and extent of authority both score average.
Lastly, the Expert Groups consultation category naturally scores low on the inclusivity of participant method. Asking professionals to consult on a specific policy issue will results in a generic group of people and organisations, this will be a really homogenous group of
stakeholders that provide input. The intensity of communication and extent of authority is really high. The Expert Groups can express their preferences clearly and can influence the agenda and procedures of the meetings. Also creating the expectation that the diversity of the stakeholders will be really low.
Expectations
I expect that the open/online public consultation will create a specific community of actors that consult, however in general the business actors and companies still dominate the consultation and diversity is average at most. I also expect that the conferences &
workshops will be dominated by business actors and companies over the civil society, and possibly even less diverse than for open/online public consultation. Next, I expect that direct
meetings will be even less diverse, and the European Commission directly meets with mostly the same business actors and companies. Lastly, I expect that Expert Groups will mostly consist of the same business actors and companies, although the organisations participating in the consultation will be slightly more diverse than during direct meetings.
These expectations are set out in the following hypothesis:
H1: The more inclusive the participant selection method, the more diverse the
group of stakeholders that provide input.
H2: The less intense the mode of communication, the more diverse the group
of stakeholders that provide input
H3: The lower the extent of authority, the more diverse the group of
stakeholders that provide input
These expectations have certain implications for the forms of consultation in terms of the diversity that they provide. The expectation is that open/online public consultation leads to average/specific diversity, conferences & workshop lead to average diversity, direct
meetings lead to low diversity and Expert Groups lead to low/average diversity. The expectations have been placed in an overview in figure 9.
Consultation form Expected diversity
Open/online public consultation Average/specific Conferences & workshops Average
Direct meetings Low
Expert groups Low/average
Figure 9: Expectations of the forms of stakeholder consultation on diversity
The hypotheses together will provide an answer to the research question. The next chapter will discuss the research method of this thesis.
Research methods
The theoretical framework discussed the existing academical knowledge on consultation and formulated hypothesis that can be tested with the data gathered for this research. This section will first justify the unit of analysis and research design. The section will then continue to operationalise the theoretical concepts identified in the previous section and discuss the reliability and validity of the measures.
Justification of the unit of analysis
The EU Work Plan for Sport is a great example of a Resolution that has been prepared by the European Commission with the use of many and various consultation instruments. The Commission has developed its many and diverse consultation instruments over time for the drafting of the different EU Work Plans for Sport. The diverse nature and longer timeframe of this case provides good ground for research. Theories on consultation process of the European Commission can be tested by applying them to this specific case.
Besides the specific and useful nature of the case, the data is all available publicly. Open consultation reports, survey results, statistics, publications and other documents used by the European Commission can be found online. All Expert Group meeting reports and
evaluations between the EU Work Plans for Sport can also be found online as well as consultations reports with Member States and other participants. This research will use many of these documents, including but not limited to open consultation reports, survey results, statistics, publications, meeting agenda’s, deliverables, studies, Declarations,
conclusions, reports, White papers and Regulations relevant for the EU Work plan for Sport. Additionally, my current employer is actively involved in 3 of the 5 Expert Groups and we have strong on-going relationships with all the other organisations involved in the
consultation around the EU Work Plan for Sport. As well as close contact with the European Commission sport unit itself. Additional reports and comments can be retrieved through these contacts. Interviews and meetings can be arranged with public officials and
stakeholders.
Justification of the research design
To answer the research question, this thesis has used triangulation to gather the necessary data. This means that the research has used more than one method to collect data. Namely an in-depth analysis of consultation documents in the case of the EU Work Plan for Sport of 2011-2014, 2014-2017 & 2017-2020. This research will use consultation documents such as the open consultation reports, survey results, statistics, publications, meeting agenda’s, deliverables, studies, Declarations, conclusions, reports, White papers and Regulations relevant for the EU Work plan for Sport. And 4 interviews with public officials and stakeholders on perceived advantages and disadvantages of the choice of consultation instruments. The interviews were held with Sir Graham Watson, chairman of a High Level Group on Grassroot Sport and President of EuropeActive, an observer organisation for multiple expert groups. Diogo Guia, former EU representative from the Portuguese government at the Sports meetings and expert groups and current Director Sport Public
Policy at the International Centre for Sport Security, an observer organisation for multiple expert groups. Agata Dziarnowska and Nais Rigollet as employees of the Sport Unit of the European Commission DG EAC and Yves Le-Lostecque as head of the Sport Unit of the European Commission DG EAC.
The main purpose of using multiple methods to collect data is to capture multiple
dimensions of the same case. Looking at multiple dimensions of the same case improves the validity of this research.
An in-depth analysis of consultation documents can provide the data that is required to measure the theoretical concepts outlined in previous sections and operationalised in the following chapter. This data will be used to formulate preliminary results and conclusions. The interviews with public officials and stakeholders can then be used to research whether the results of the in-depth analysis match the perceptions of public officials and
stakeholders. This greatly increases the validity of the research and increases the completeness of the study.
Operationalisation
The theoretical framework discussed three different theoretical concepts on the consultation of the European Commission and has formulated three hypotheses on the scope of participation, mode of communication and extent of authority. In order to confirm or reject the formulated hypotheses, the concepts are broken down into indicators. These indicators are based on the dependant and independent variables and have been measured through the in-depth analysis of consultation documents and interviews with public officials and stakeholders. The dependant variable of this research is the diversity of stakeholders that participated in the consultation. Following the theoretical framework and hypotheses, the independent variables are the consultation forms: open/online public consultation, conferences & workshops, direct meetings and Expert Groups.
This research will look at the ratio of business actors versus citizen groups to assess stakeholder diversity. Using percentage of business actors as an indicator of business dominance, so that it can be analysed how this percentage differs between different consultation tools used in this specific case. This research sees the distinction between business actor and citizen group as follows: groups representing companies (both companies themselves and associations of companies/professionals) are business actors and
organisations that bring together citizens (such as NGOs) are citizen groups.
This research will measure the diversity of stakeholders that participated in consultation by calculating a ration of business actors versus citizen groups. These actors will be identified by looking at participation of organisations online, in the agenda and reports of meetings and participant lists for all the meetings and conferences.
The following chapters will analyse the data and present the findings of the research. And finally discuss how the results relate to the theory. Presenting (dis-)proof of the scores of the consultation forms on the independent variables, including examples and the effects that this has on the diversity of stakeholders.
Analysis
Following the inclusion of sport in the Lisbon Treaty and in line with article 165 TFEU (European Union, 2007), the European Union and its Member States have collaborated to develop a European Sport Policy. In this regard, EU Work Plan for Sport represents the most important document. The first EU Work Plan for Sport was adopted by the Council in its Resolution of 20 May 2011, the second one on 21 May 2014 and the third one on 23 May 2017. The EU Work Plan for Sport sets the priorities of European sporting issues for the Member States and the Commission for the forthcoming three years.
The EU Work Plan for Sport resolution shows that the European Commission is working with many and diverse consultation instruments that develop over time. The diverse nature and longer timeframe of this case provides good ground for research.
This chapter first gives a brief explanation of the EU Work Plans for Sport, and then focusses on each consultation instruments used in the Work Plans.
First EU Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014
For the first EU Work Plan for Sport in 2011, the Commission introduced three Sport Strategy Groups to focus on key topics related to the set priorities and were comprised of Member State and Commission representatives. Groups of experts under the Sport Strategy Groups were established for special tasks on high technical nature (European Commission, 2014a). Besides Sport Strategy Groups, the Commission and the Member States introduced Expert Groups in the following areas, anti-doping; good governance in sport; education and training in sport; sport, health and participation; sport statistics and sustainable financing of sport. Overall, the consultation instruments introduced by the Commission under the first Work Plan for sport were well received by the Member States. The vast majority of the Member States agreed that the Work Plan positively impacted the sport sector and led to fruitful outcomes for the sport policy at national level. The ‘other’ stakeholders shared this positive assessment of the Work Plan.
Member States explicitly noted the positive impact gained by the support from the Commission and the involvement of observers (stakeholders in the Expert Groups). The input expressed by the observers overall were seen as a positive addition for the sport policy at European and national level. The Commission however, together with the Member States and stakeholders also see some limitations to this type of consultation instrument.
The Commission with support of the Member States had a difficult time finding high level organisations to participate in the work of the six Expert Groups. Additionally, the experts that were observer in the Expert Groups could not attend all meetings and were not always appointed public officials. Further, the composition of the Expert Groups was not
representative in terms of variety and the level of expertise. This challenged the goals of consultation in general; to improve legitimacy and gain relevant expertise. The outcomes of
the groups were often only achieved by consulting additional experts and through input from the staff of the Commission itself, going far beyond the initial idea of the Work Plan. All involved parties agreed that (sport) stakeholders participating in Expert Groups as
observers had a positive impact. The Member States however noted that in some groups the number of observers was too high. And that this limited the room for the group members to debate amongst each other. The interaction with the observers should continue in the next Work Plan, however could be even more effective with clear role descriptions and fewer observers.
Addressing these limitations and at the same time learning from the experience of the first Work Plan, the Commission in its new Work Plan followed through some improvements, in the form of new introduced consultation methods replacing the current working situation. Second EU Work Plan for Sport 2014-2017
The second EU Work Plan for Sport had the Commission set up five Expert Groups. Each group again comprised of experts from the member states, European and international (sporting) bodies and the European Commission Sport Unit (European Commission, 2014b). This time on the following topics match-fixing, good governance, economic dimension, HEPA and human resources development in sport.
In addition to adjusting the topics of the Expert Groups, other consultation instruments were introduced by the Commission. The instruments included Presidency conferences, studies commissioned by the Commission, meetings between Sport Ministers and the Commission, a pledge Board and Commission conferences.
The conferences were the first introduction of consultation open to a broader public, while Presidency conferences introduced very selectively recruited participants and scientific studies were also introduced in the second EU Work Plan for Sport.
In review, the consultation instruments generated the results that the Commission was looking for and bridged the knowledge gap. The observer role in the Expert groups did get some more critique by the Member States, saying that the organisations were promoting their views instead of keeping a more neutral approach.
Besides this, the outputs were also critiqued by the Member States. There were still too many and too broad topics to deal with for some of the Expert Groups. The suggestion was to focus on the priorities and request less output from the Expert Groups. The Commission also considered the added value of the Expert Groups and agreed with the Member States that the number of observers should be restricted to a limited group and only involve those with clear connection to the topic. The Commission suggests implementing a selection process of participating organisations ensuring this is the case.
The EU Work Plan for Sport should also, according to the Commission, offer the possibility to include more working methods such as “conferences, platforms, seminars, studies,
Third EU Work Plan for Sport 2017-2020
The Council evaluated the second EU Work Plan for Sport on the basis of a report by the Commission in order to gain more support for the third EU Work Plan for Sport. The
evaluation came from a questionnaire sent to Member States, Member States’ experts and observers who participated in the Expert Groups (EuropeActive, 2017). Following this report, the third EU Work Plan for Sport introduced two Expert Groups instead of the five previous Expert Groups. The Expert Groups focused on integrity and skills and workforce
development in sport. It also introduced new working methods such as cluster meetings and ensures the follow-up of the two High Level Groups on sport diplomacy and grassroots sport (European Commission, 2017).
Member States can now also initiate meetings on subjects of interest that they share with some or a group of other Member States. These meetings provide a platform for national governments to learn from best practices of sport policy on a national level across Europe. The third EU Work Plan for Sport is still in effect and no review has yet been done to assess the effectiveness of the implementation. All consultation instruments that are used in the third Work Plan have however still been used in this research.
Consultation instruments and the stakeholders
All of the Work Plan for Sport together used many consultation instruments. Some of which are still active right now. Taking a look at the forms of consultation that have been used gives a good impression of the scale of the Work Plan for Sport. It also identifies the
consultation instruments used in the case and their corresponding diversity of stakeholders. Open/online public consultation
According to the meeting agendas & reports, no open/online public consultation has been used to gather relevant expertise or legitimacy. This is however not entirely true says
Diogo Guia (Director Sports Public Policy at the International Centre for Sport Security (ICSS)) because the EU Sports Forum and European Week of Sport are also very effective
consultation instruments for the Commission that are open for public:
“The biggest physical outcome of the consultations with Member States and Sports organisations, the European Week of Sport, is an invaluable source of expertise and legitimacy for the European Commission”
The Week as well as other events are unofficially a consultation form for the European Commission to consult participating Member States, (sports) organisations that are official Partners of The Week as well as people participating in the events/activities that are being organised all across Europe. The European Week of Sport is held each year since the first edition in 2015.
Besides this, The European Commission each year launches an open public consultation after the European Week of Sport. The 4 open/online public consultations so far inform the
European Commission on the implementation of The Week and through that also provides invaluable knowledge on the EU Work Plan for Sport.
The European Commission DG EAC – Sport Unit confirms this, saying that they use Open/online public consultation, although not open for everyone:
“We use online survey after things. For example, we used it after the 2nd EU Work
Plan for Sport. We prepared a survey and we send it, but it was not open for everyone. We send it to our fixed partners. To the Member States, to the members of the Expert Groups, to see what is working and was is not working. As well as after the European Week of Sport, we use the Open Online Consultation to see if it was worth to have this initiative”
The goal of the stakeholders during the open/online public consultation is to get their issues on the agenda on European level. The European Week of Sport and open public consultation proofs to be a good way for them to do this. Open/online public consultation is held each 4 years on the EU Work Plan for Sport, and each year on the European Week of Sport. The stakeholders can fill in the open public consultation, and directly try to get their issues on the agenda at the European Commission. They can also use the European Week of Sport Partners to indirectly communicate with the European Commission. The partners (see Annex III) all represent an interest group and have more influence on what gets on the agenda as they are also participants at conferences, workshops, direct meetings or even an observer in one of the Expert Groups. This has proven to be an effective way of consulting the European Commission as the priorities of the Expert Groups have been changed throughout the years in accordance to the evaluations of the Member States, Member States’ experts and
observers who participated in the Expert Groups.
The way this works is for the stakeholders to organise an event during the European Week of Sport and do this under the flag of one of the partners. An example of this is the National Fitness Days organised by one of the partners, EuropeActive. Fitness operators and Training Providers organised open-door events or conferences in their clubs and invited European citizens to join them. In return, they could inform EuropeActive on the skills and workforce development in fitness. This is something that EuropeActive passed on to the European Commission and is now one of the priorities of the Expert Groups. In total there were 34000 events in 32 European countries with 12 million participants during the 2017 European Week of Sport.
The goal for the European Commission with the open/online public consultation is to see if the initiatives are worth having implemented and to see if the consultation instruments are still working towards the goals as formulated in the EU Work Plan for Sport.
Proving its usefulness, the next EU Work Plan for Sport is always based on the outcome of the survey after it’s predecessor. One of the outcomes for example was that there were too many expert groups, as said by the European Commission:
“Under the 2nd Work Plan we had five [Expert Groups], and now we have only two.
In total there are 39 partners that support the European Week of Sport and encourage Europeans all year round to #BeActive. These are the most important stakeholders, of which 14 are professionals’ associations and 19 business actors (85% business actors, 15% citizen groups). All 28 EU member states participated in The Week as well as some other countries on the European continent. All countries have a national coordinator body involved as stakeholder which usually consisted of the National Olympic Committee or Sport Ministry and no business actors.
The corresponding diversity of stakeholders through this unofficial open/online consultation is difficult to state with accuracy or even certainty. The percentage of business actors of 85% is based on open/online public consultation for the partners, the expectation is that this percentage would be much lower if open for any actor to participate.
With 39 partners and 37 national coordinator bodies all disseminating the consultation opportunity to a larger group of actors, both non-business and business according to the nature of the partners and national coordinator bodies, it is safe to say that there are a lot of different actors and voices heard through this consultation method.
Conferences & workshops
The meeting agendas & reports on the EU Work Plan for Sport also record no use of conferences & workshops. Besides the EU Work Plan for Sport however, the European Commission also funds partnerships between sports organisations, non-profit events and research to strengthen policymaking under the Erasmus+ Programme. And organise each year the EU Sport Forum, since 2009 the European Commission has organised the EU Sport Forum 10 times. This is an opportunity for stakeholders to meet policy makers and
representatives of the EU institutions and of the Member States. About this, the European Commission DG EAC – Sport Unit says:
“The first main, strictly Commission, event which we use as a consultation, is the EU Sports Forum. This is something we call the structural dialogue with the sport movement. The idea behind the Forum is exactly to consult our future activities and policies and to know the opinion and needs of the sports movement.”
The goal for the stakeholders during the conferences & workshops is to gain a better
understanding of the latest policy developments and influence these at the same time. They do this by coordinating EU projects under the Erasmus+ Programme or attending the
conferences & workshops and raise their voice. Sir Graham Watson (President EuropeActive) confirmed this goal and, together with his organisation, makes good use of the consultation opportunities that the conferences & workshop provide. EuropeActive coordinates various EU projects under the Erasmus+ Programme, addressing issues such as inactivity, or doping in recreational sports. Sir Graham Watson also suggested a PACT – a Physical Activity Coordination Team – which he explains as an extra check on the impact of the measure on healthy lifestyles:
“To work across the Commission to ensure that every policy decision, every
recommendation, every draft Directive from every Directorate includes proper consideration of the impact of the measure on healthy lifestyles”
These consultation instruments provided opportunities for many other organisations as well, with many EU projects with a budget of €48,6 million announced for sport and over 350 stakeholders participating each year at the conferences & workshops. Organisations have a big influence by coordinating an EU project or attending the conferences & workshops. This makes it a very effective consultation instrument for the Commission to bridge the
knowledge and legitimacy gaps.
For the European Commission the goals are quite similar, as they are about seeking the stakeholders’ views:
“The EU Sport Forum is the main platform for structured dialogue between the European Commission and sport stakeholders. The Forum's main objective is to take stock of progress achieved in implementing the EU agenda for sport and to seek stakeholders’ views on current and planned/possible future activities”
During the two days Forum, various conferences and workshops have been organized covering many topics and involving a large group of stakeholders. In total, over 350 stakeholders participate each year at the conferences & workshops with a huge variety:
“The variety of stakeholders - leading representatives from European institutions, international and European sport federations, the Olympic movement, European and national sport umbrella organisations and other sport-related organisations- together with the participation of Tibor Navracsics, European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, clearly demonstrated the strong commitment and expectations of and from the sector at European level”
The diversity of actors attending the EU Sport Forum conferences and meetings is as follows according to the participant lists of the two last editions of the Forum:
237 Business actors (67%) 12 NGOs (3,5%)
12 Research institutions (3,5%) 88 Public institutions (25%) Direct meetings
Direct meetings were organised by the presidency and mostly consisted of conferences for a very selective group of stakeholders. Or meetings between Sport Ministers and the
Commission. This did not involve any stakeholders as such.
In the framework of the European Week of Sport however, the partners have additional direct meetings with the European Commission on some issues:
“If you become a partner of the European Week of Sport, then there are meetings, and we work with them, we consult with them more on the part of the healthy lifestyle and HEPA [red. Health Enhancing Physical Activity]”
The goal for the stakeholders is once again to gain a better understanding of the latest policy developments and influence these at the same time. Because the meetings were held much smaller and with higher frequency the influence was higher than with the regular
conferences & workshops.
The goal of these meetings for the European Commission is to gain more information as well as practical observations from the Expert Group observers and the entire sport movement, because they are the ones at the end implementing the EU Work Plan for Sport.
As the direct meetings were just held with partners of the European Week of Sport, the corresponding diversity of stakeholders through direct meetings is quite similar to that of the conferences & workshops. Just a few less stakeholders and the same ratio of business actors (85%) versus citizen groups (15%).
Expert groups
The European Commission lastly, set up Expert Groups to look at particular areas related to the EU Work Plan for Sport:
“In this EU Work Plan for Sport, the European Commission was invited to establish those two Expert Groups. Which are fully Commission Expert Groups but let’s say the idea came from the Member States”
This consultation instrument gives the opportunity to European and international sporting bodies to be invited as observer to the meetings of the Expert Groups. The goal for the stakeholders is during the Expert Groups is to provide the right information and put the most important issues on the political agenda.
The goal for the European Commission with Expert Groups is to address transnational challenges, provide added value and eventually to pave the way for possible future EU level activities. The observer role in the Expert groups did get some critique by the Member States, saying that the organisations were promoting their views instead of keeping a more neutral approach. It was also noted that in some groups the number of observers was too high. And that this limited the room for the group members to debate amongst each other. In review however, the Expert Groups proved to be successful in addressing transnational challenges and paved the way for some of the EU level activities already. Such as the EU Sport Forum, European Week of Sport and studies commissioned by the Commission. In total, 23 stakeholders and 6 public entities participated at the Expert Groups as observer. These 23 stakeholders consisted of 8 business actors, 7 NGOs, 2 Research institutions and some other organisations (see Annex IV). Besides the stakeholders all the 28 Member States participated with 1-3 public authorit(y-ies) each. The Member States participate in the Expert Groups as member.
The corresponding diversity of stakeholders through Expert Groups, is limited. The business actors make up for 34% of the actors participating in the Expert Groups, while the societal and other organisations make up for the other 76%.
Advantages and disadvantages of the consultation instruments
Looking at the various consultation instruments and their effect on the diversity of
stakeholders in the context of the EU Work Plan for Sport, some perceived advantages and disadvantaged can be identified.
For the open/online public consultation a clear advantage is scope of the participators. All aspects of the initiatives implemented can be discussed and all consultation instruments are evaluated on their effectiveness. This is an invaluable source of expertise and legitimacy for the European Commission. And has a positive effect on the diversity of stakeholders that can provide consultation.
At the same time, the broadness is also a disadvantage as the consultation would not be specific enough:
“But speaking about the EU Work Plan for Sport and commenting on the
implementation, opening for all public is too broad. We won’t get the clear answer. This would be too broad”
In order for the open/public consultation to be effective, the European Commission made special efforts to make sure that the information is disseminated to the widest possible relevant audience. Member States and partner organisations will target their network in order to raise awareness of the consultation. This will also indirectly broader the diversity of stakeholders involved in the consultation process of the European Commission.
Regarding conferences & workshops it is also the case that the scope of participators is a clear advantage. Because there are so many participators, many topics can be discussed at the same time during one conference or workshops. The participation is also relatively diverse using this consultation instrument. The advantage of conferences & workshops over open/online public consultation, is that the participators are all from relevant organisations in the sport sector.
On the other hand, the conferences & workshops each year see the same organisations participating, of which some are promoting their views instead of keeping a more neutral approach. This has a negative effect on the diversity of the stakeholders. Besides, the number of stakeholders is really high, and this limits the room for discussion during these conferences & workshops.
The advantages of the direct meetings are that the European Commission can themselves decide who to invite, how often to meet and what topics to discuss. This is obviously not positive for the diversity of stakeholders that can provide consultation. It is however, more effective for discussions than the open/public consultation or conferences & workshops. And can be more specific in terms of the topics that are being discussed.
Lastly, the Expert Groups are a great instrument for discussion. Here it is not so much about the outcome itself but the process:
“The Expert Groups, one of the most important things, is to discuss. So it’s not only the outcome itself but the process. Because during the process we share good practices, we discuss, we talk, we can change or present our different opinions”
A disadvantage of both the direct meetings and Expert Groups is that the Member States are willing to work only to a certain extend. The contribution of the Member States is relatively limited. This also limits the group of deliverables and outcomes that can be expected to come out of the work of the Expert Groups and direct meetings. A positive surprise however, was that the European Commission had more input from the observers than we had from the Member States and the consultation instrument really delivers.
At the start of the EU Work Plan for Sport, there were 5 Expert Groups and all direct meetings and Expert Groups had at least 3 deliverables. They had to present at least 3 documents. This caused the Member States to focus on drafting the document instead of the process, and the outcomes were not as the European Commission wanted. Now the cooperation has changed and is not focused on delivering a document, but a specific part linked to the exchange of good practices and as well learning on the field. In practice this entails that during the meetings a partner organisation and/or Member State will share their good practice.
Regarding the effect of diversity of organisations involved in the consultation, the European Commission made another point. For the Expert Groups at least, having a more diverse group of organisations would not change the outcome itself. In the end, the Member States have to agree on the decisions and the diversity of the consultation organisations only influence the process:
“Inviting more organisations or more diverse groups of organisations, it would more influence the process, not the outcome itself”
Of course, changing the process can also influence the outcome, but this is not necessarily the case.
Synthesis
As we can see at the start of the analysis, the EU Work Plan for Sport has developed over time. Each new Plan introduced or amended the working methods and used consultation instruments. The changes are made based on the experience of the European Commission but also influenced by the outcome of the use of consultation instruments.
In general, it can be said for all consultation instruments that the goals of the stakeholders and European Commission were achieved, and the knowledge gap has been bridged. A lot of voices have been heard and a mildly diverse group of stakeholders have been consulted in various ways. Between the different consultation forms, the diversity of the stakeholders is different as can be seen in figure 10 below. For the open/online public consultation it is
unknown how high the exact percentage of business actors is. But it is safe to say that there are a lot of different actors and voices heard through this consultation method. Participating in conferences & workshop are 237 business organisations, making up about 67% of the total. For the direct meetings the percentage of business actors was 85%. The Expert groups were made up of 34% business actors.
Consultation form Percentage of business actors
Open/online public consultation 85%*
Conferences & workshops 67%
Direct meetings 85%
Expert groups 34%
Figure 10: Percentage of business actors per consultations form
* Percentage of business actors based on open/online public consultation for the partners, expectation is that this percentage would be much lower if open for any actor to participate.
Do the results of this research match with the expectations made in the previous sections? In the theoretical framework three variables were used and a hypothesis was made to predict the diversity of stakeholders that are involved in the consultation process of the European Commission. The variables are respectively scope of participation, mode of communication and extent of authority, with the following hypothesis:
H1: The more inclusive the participant selection method, the more diverse the
group of stakeholders that provide input
According to the results of this research, as shown in the figure below, the first hypothesis can be rejected. In fact, the more inclusive the participant selection method according to theory, the less diverse the group of stakeholders that provide input in practice.
The consultation instrument with the least inclusive participant selection, Expert Groups, has the most diverse group of stakeholders. While the consultation instrument with the most inclusive participant selection, open/online public consultation, has the least diverse group of stakeholders together with the direct meetings.
Despite the open nature of the consultation form, the open/public consultation mostly attracts business interest representatives. And the Expert Groups, despite the closed nature consisted of a more diverse group of actors. This is most likely because of the lack of
resources of societal organisations to respond to open/public consultations, and the Commission appointing a diverse group of actors for the Expert Groups.
