Organizational Reputation of Regulatory EU Agencies
About the influence of age on the management of organizational reputation by
European Union agencies
Master Thesis
Mila Rebero
S1545566
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Dovilė Rimkutė
Second Reader: Dr. E. M. Busuioc
MSc Public Administration:
European and International Governance
Leiden University
Word Count: 12.119
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 3
Theoretical framework ... 5
Organizational reputation ... 7
The life cycle and the importance of age ... 10
Research Design ... 15
Most similar Systems Design I ... 15
Operationalization ... 19
Empirical analysis ... 22
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) ... 22
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) ... 25
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ... 27
The European Environment Agency (EEA) ... 29
Discussion and conclusion ... 33
Recommendations ... 35
Introduction
The European Union (EU) has seen a proliferation of agencies in the recent years with their individual organizational designs (Curtin, 2007). The manner in which EU agencies maintain their organizational reputations differs because of their personal beliefs, capacities, and missions (Carpenter, 2010). Agencies face multiple challenges due to the political environment that they operate in, which makes it mandatory to focus on projecting a strong organizational reputation through which their organizational capacities are highlighted (Carpenter and Kraus, 2011). According to Carpenter and Kraus (2011) organizational reputation is defined as “a set of beliefs about an organization’s capacities, intentions, history, and mission that are embedded in a network of multiple audiences” (p. 26). These external audiences review and criticize an organization’s ability to maintain its reputation and are one of the drivers and motivators of an organization to maintain its reputation. Audiences can be institutional actors, political actors, but also the general public (Busuioc and Rimkutė, 2019). The maintenance of a good reputation is of importance for both accountability and legitimacy reasons. If the audiences doubt the functioning of an organization, it is eventually unable to operate efficiently and legitimately (Carpenter and Kraus, 2011). Therefore, the behaviour of organizations is usually adapted to the expectations of audiences (Busuioc and Rimkutė, 2019).
There are four types of reputations which organizations can pursue, meaning there is not one general reputation that an organization tries to uphold. Instead, there are four different types, namely, technical reputation, performative reputation, moral reputation, and legal-procedural reputation (Carpenter and Kraus, 2011). Furthermore, the enhancement of one reputation might mean less focus on the other, therefore, an agency has to prioritize and choose which reputation fits its organizational structure (Ibid., 2011). Research shows that an organization spends much of its time creating a reputation that will help it gain autonomy and mechanisms to defend itself against external reputational threats (Carpenter and Kraus, 2011). These reputational threats occur once the activities of an organization start to become relevant to certain audiences and create challenges for an organization to maintain a good reputation (Gilad et. al., 2013; Carpenter and Krause, 2012). According to Rimkutė (2019), the more reputational threats an organization experiences, the wider the range of their “reputational repertoire” by also focusing on legal-procedural and moral reputation instead of only on their performative and technical reputation (p. 9).
These four types of organizational reputation are going to be applied to European Union agencies which differ on one main aspect: age. Whilst more research is done with regards to
organizational reputation and the threats of external audiences, less research can be found on what the influence of age is on the ability to maintain such a reputation. There are many other variables, independent variables, which can explain the variance of organizational reputation management. Some examples are the previously mentioned reputational threats, but also whether an organization or agency is either a regulatory or non-regulatory agency. Therefore, there is no clear knowledge on whether age of an agency actually matters for organizational reputation management. This is the main reason why this research is relevant, to close this research gap. Consequently, the research question that is formulated is: To what extent does
age of an agency influence their reputational management strategies?
The scientific relevance of studying the maintenance of reputation government agencies, specifically EU agencies, is because it is analysed through the lens of age, and due to the fact that these specific agencies were not overly discussed in literature regarding organizational reputation and the influence of age. It is also relevant to analyse the abilities of younger agencies with regards to maintenance of reputation, in contrast to older agencies. This relevance lies with the fact that the information can be used to advise both younger and older agencies on how to best maintain their reputation when they are a certain age, to work as efficiently and effectively as possible and satisfy the expectations of external audiences. In addition, this thesis provides an analysis on which type of organizational reputation the agencies focus on and how effective they are at maintaining their reputation. It is important to mention that all types of organizational reputation are interconnected, and that the agencies can highlight more than one type of reputation as is relevant to them.
The goal is to evaluate if age influences an agency’s reputational management strategies and skills. Empirically, this research puzzle will be approached by focusing on four agencies which all reside in different phases in the life cycle. To be able to research this, a qualitative analysis shall be performed where annual reports and communications of agencies shall be studied. Specifically, documents of the year of establishment, and the last documents that can be retrieved. Furthermore, the aspects of the reputations that the agencies emphasize and the influence of age on this emphasis shall be outlined.
Theoretical framework
The manner in which agencies build a defence mechanism against external reputational threats, and the way in which they manage their organizational reputation can only be analysed by explaining the following concepts, namely, agencification, organizational reputation, audience, reputational uniqueness, reputational threats, and the life cycle perspective.
One of the primary concepts is agencification, also known as the coming into existence of agencies. Scholars have tried to reason why these agencies came into existence. Agencification happened due to the “delegation of public authority to the executive branch” (Scholten and Rijsbergen, 2014, p. 1223). These executive branches then dispersed into smaller parts. This process mainly happened due to globalization and technological advancements. Due to the increasingly complex nature of issues, political compromises were made to disperse functions towards various agencies. This was also known as the “agencification phenomenon” (Busuioc et. al., 2012; Scholten and Rijsbergen, 2014, p. 1224). Independent European regulatory agencies came into existence, but also had to deal with a lack of democratic legitimacy and accountability measures. Therefore, since their establishment, EU agencies have focused on various strategies to create a foundation for legitimacy (Scholten and Rijsbergen, 2014). This ranged from showing a high level of expertise and knowledge to following the correct procedures (Carpenter, 2010) In addition, according to Egeberg and Trondal (2016), agencies are necessary as they possess a high capacity to tackle collective action problems. Christensen and Lægreid (2005) also state that agencification and regulation in general go hand in hand as organizations need regulation, but there is no regulation without autonomous organizations (p.6). Therefore, in order for there to be regulation and change, agencies are needed.
Based on the aforementioned, the maintenance of an agency’s organizational reputation is a necessity for creating a legitimate basis for its existence. The term organizational reputation is conceptualized as the beliefs an organization holds, and the mission which are both embedded in a network of audiences which criticise the organization’s abilities to maintain its reputation (Carpenter and Kraus, 2011). There are four types of organizational reputations, namely, performative reputation, moral reputation, legal-procedural reputation, and technical reputation (Carpenter and Kraus, 2011). One important notion is that the enhancement of one type of organizational reputation might decrease the maximization of another type of organizational reputation (Ibid.). A central concept linked to organizational reputation is that of audience. An audience can either be an individual or group that observes and judges an agency, and
consequently shape regulation. This is done by either empowering or weakening a regulator, or by making an agency adapt to them. Audiences which are under the direct influence of an agency can either contest or obey the power of the agency. Furthermore, agencies can adapt the rhetoric of their audience either consciously or unconsciously (Carpenter, 2010, p. 33). There are different types of audiences such as political or judiciary authorities, interest groups, media, scientific organizations, and the mass public.
Reputational uniqueness relates back to audiences trying to define what is unique about an agency. They often ask the question “what does this organization provide that alternatives do not?” (Carpenter, 2010, p. 54). Therefore, audiences focus on whether agencies are able to provide outcomes that another agency is unable to provide. This uniqueness can be emphasized by explaining the importance of their roles, competencies and the effectiveness of their mandates (Rimkutė, 2019). In addition, to maintain their uniqueness, their functions and actions need to be acknowledged as original (Rimkutė, 2019; Carpenter, 2010). Their reputational uniqueness and how it is perceived will eventually shape an agency’s behaviour. However, reputational uniqueness is not the only reason that shapes an organization’s behaviour. Reputational threats also play an important role. According to Rimkutė (2019), reputational threats can be defined as “threats originating from the multiplicity of conflicting audiences observing and judging the outputs and/or processes of agencies” (p. 3). Audiences and the threats they pose also shape an organization’s behaviour. An agency’s strategies are formed based on the uniqueness they want to accentuate and the blame-avoidance methods they devise to react to the threats (Rimkutė, 2019; Carpenter, 2010).
The concept of the life cycle perspective is based on the argument that an organization or agency goes through four different phases in their ‘life’, going from the first phase of gestation to the last phase of old age. During their life cycle, organizations experience many changes with regards to how they manage their reputation (Bernstein, 1955). The link between all concepts is that there was a proliferation of agencies, e.g. agencification. These agencies try to maintain their individual organizational reputation through differing strategies. The ability to maintain the organizational reputation depends on their reputational uniqueness, and the reputational threats that audiences create. Nevertheless, an important notion which has not been formerly analysed is how their position in the life cycle influences their management strategies. These concepts are all related to the research question: To what extent does age of an agency
influence their reputational management strategies? The core argument is that old agencies are
smarter due to being in a later stage in the life cycle and try to maintain various reputations but become stuck in a process of bureaucratization which burdens their efficiency. In contrast,
young agencies are less able to manage their reputation, because they still have to establish the correct mechanisms to address reputational threats. In addition, young agencies focus more on the technical and moral dimensions than older agencies.
To formulate a clear explanation to the research question, the dependent and independent variables should first be outlined. The dependent variable being the four different organizational reputations an organization can maintain, and the independent variable being age. The dependent variable shall eventually be analysed through policy strategies, annual reports, communications and relevant exchange of letters. The independent variable will be analysed by explaining the life cycle perspective. In addition, the reputational threats that occur in the various phases of the life cycle shall be explained.
Organizational reputation
As mentioned before, there are four different types of organizational reputation. The first, technical reputation, entails that an organisation can stress the importance of its intelligence and expertise which is a smart tactic when wanting to appeal to audiences as expertise is needed due to the complex nature of modern society (Carpenter, 2010; Haas, 1992). Furthermore, experts are necessary to supply information and give advice to interpret a problem or situation at hand, and to articulate the cause of the problem and its possible effects. Once an organization has the ability to achieve this, it creates a kind of legitimating factor as organisations do not have the same direct legitimacy as national governments (Littoz-Monnet, 2017; Boswell, 2008). Therefore, to promote their technical reputation, organisations focus on their “scientific accuracy, methodological prowess, and analytical capacity” (Carpenter, 2010, p. 46).
Performative reputation is based on the judgements of the audience on the performance of organisations. The audience often judges the decision-making quality, how effectively the company achieves its ends and its announced objectives (Ibid., p. 46). According to Carpenter (2010), what is relevant with regards to an organization’s performance is not necessarily only its success, but also its “capacity for taking drastic action that harms the interests of some of those audiences subject to the regulator’s power” (p. 46). Therefore, an organization’s main focus should be on its vigour, aggressiveness, and coercive tactics when pursuing certain goals, as this would show its competency (Carpenter, 2010, p.46). In addition, this could give an organization autonomy, and therefore ‘the ability to operate in a manner that is insulated from the influence of other political actors (Bauer and Ege, 2016, p. 1022). International organizations often have a multi-level and diverse nature as they do not operate on a national
level, but on an intergovernmental or supranational level which forces them to coordinate between multiple actors, or audiences (Trondal et. al., 2010, p. 15). However, a good performative reputation could also enhance the ability of organizations to maintain a level of autonomy and independence.
Moral reputation focuses on whether an organization is ‘compassionate, flexible, and honest’ (Carpenter, 2012, p. 27). In addition, it entails whether an organization acts ethically with respect to its clients and members, and if it upholds moral values with regards to human needs (Carpenter, 2010, p. 46). How does an organization represent those related to it? It is not only important for an organization to be effective, but also to advocate for morality. This can, for example, be done by providing equal opportunities within the organization, to focus on diversity management, and to advocate for a process of socialization. Equal opportunities entail enhancing the democratic nature of an organization by not differentiating based on gender, ethnicity, or age. Furthermore, diversity management means hiring people from different backgrounds which increases the performance of organizations through the abundance of information that results from this diversity (Groeneveld and Van de Walle, 2010; Parizek, 2017). Ban (2013) coins the concept of socialization within an organization and explains how bringing together people from various backgrounds can ensure that an organization functions efficiently. Consequently, an organizational culture is created where there are unwritten and written rules which decide what the appropriate behaviour is within an organization. All these factors can be connected to upholding a moral reputation within an organization.
The last type of organizational reputation is the legal-procedural reputation which regards the “justness of processes by which its behaviour is generated” (Carpenter, 2010, p. 47). It seems similar to moral reputation, but it differs with respect that an organization can then still act ethically but does not follow the appropriate rules and norms for procedures and decision-making (Carpenter, 2010). Thoroughly following the correct procedures can legitimize an organization’s actions in the eyes of external audiences (Busuioc and Rimkutė, 2019).
Rimkutė (2019) summarized all the dimensions of organizational reputations in a clear table (shown below), wherein the four types were explained through the signals that are sent to respective audiences, and by focusing on agency communication.
Source: D. Rimkutė. (2019). Building organizational reputation in the European regulatory state: An
analysis of EU agencies’ communications. Governance, p. 5.
According to this table, the technical dimension focuses on sending out signals about its expertise, and on communicating through providing sound scientific evidence. With the performative dimension an agency sending out a signal that it is capable of maintaining its goals and communicates this through adequate and impressive outputs and outcomes. If an agency focuses on the legal-procedural dimension, then it wants to send out signals that it follows the correct and socially accepted procedures. It then communicates by showing it maintains a just (administrative) process. Lastly, with the moral dimension an agency signals that it’s acting morally and focuses on the ethical conditions of its behaviour. To be able to communicate its moral and ethical attitude, it focuses on notions such as compassion, transparency, and inclusiveness. (Rimkutė, 2019, p. 5). As mentioned previously, an agency strategizes based on its reputational uniqueness and reputational threats. However, it is not enough to explain the different types of organizational reputation an agency can promote and the influence of its uniqueness and threats. It is also important to explain why an agency wants to promote certain organizational reputation dimensions. This will be done by outlining the influence of age on an agency’s decision-making.
The life cycle and the importance of age
The analysis on the influence of age on the ability to maintain one’s organizational reputation is of great importance for answering the research question. Thus, studying literature on the different stages in the life cycle is important in order to decide in which stage governmental institutions and agencies are, and to understand which threats an agency faces in a specific phase.
First of all, Bernstein (1955) explains that an independent commission has a life cycle consisting of four periods, namely, gestation (phase 1), youth (phase 2), maturity (phase 3), and old age (phase 4). During the first phase, gestation, an organization goes through a process of distress and agitation over a problem which creates an organization of groups of people. At first, this organization might be criticized and seen as a threat to the status quo. However, eventually the problem will be presented and seen as a public problem. It then needs to be eliminated to bring about harmony in both the public as the private sphere. The problem will be further analysed because it transformed into an acute and serious problem which requires immediate action. Nevertheless, even though the problem is viewed as important and threatening, the policies and ideas are still vague, and it will be difficult to reach a majority favouring the proposed ideas (Bernstein, 1955). The main issue during the gestation phase is that “the desire for regulation in this period takes precedence over attempts to refine regulatory goals and basic policies” (Ibid., p. 76). The focus then lies on relief from suffering instead of the development of a clear and effective solution.
The organizational reputational theory can be combined with the life cycle theory to explain the behaviour of agencies. Therefore, in phase 1 an agency’s focus will lie primarily on maintaining the legal-procedural reputation. This is due to the fact that a newly established agency desires for the vague policies and ideas to be subjected to clear rules and procedures. This would eliminate the main issue of vagueness of policies as the agency shows audiences that it does try to conform to the correct rules, and in result, obtains legitimacy from this fact. Without legitimacy international administrations such as an EU agency has little effective influence, and an agency in first instance already lacks legitimacy due to it being out of touch with national citizens (Trondal et. al., 2010). Therefore, focusing on the legal-procedural dimension is highly relevant as an agency wants to obtain legitimacy and still lacks clear policies. In addition, the legal-procedural dimension entailed that an organization shows that it is acting justly by following the correct procedures. Following this logic, the following hypothesis was created:
Hypothesis 1. In Phase 1 agencies are expected to focus primarily on the legal-procedural dimension.
After the phase of gestation, an organization flows into the second phase of youth where it still lacks administrative experience and has to further focus on forming clear policies and objectives. Its power and importance remain uncertain. During the previous phase of gestation, tensions and animosity were created towards the organization due to its vagueness and sudden ‘attack’ against the status quo (Bernstein, 1955). Nevertheless, despite this criticism from strong players, the organization will most likely continue to take on an aggressive stance to show its determination in exterminating a specific problem and will try to promote public interest. Here, an important notion is that “the newness of the tasks and the absence of familiar patterns force the agency and its staff to draw constantly upon their own resourcefulness” (Ibid., p. 80). Therefore, a new organization’s main characteristics and strengths are its passion, ambition, and inspiration due to its youthfulness. Furthermore, because the organization and its ideas are still relatively new, public interest might still be in their favour. Nevertheless, this interest can quickly fade which means regulation that is perceived as effective is a necessity. If some kind of change or legal substantiation for an organization’s existence is not provided, the organization’s legitimacy might be scrutinized. Therefore, legislation will be passed in this phase and the public support that has already been build up since the period of gestation reaches its peak, but it will be short-lived. This short-term public interest is mainly due to the fact that the organization focuses mainly on its expertise to be able to defend its actions. However, the general public will not understand the difficult language. In addition, the organization will have a lack of interest in the administrative process of its legislation which also explains deteriorating public interest (Ibid.). After the legislation was passed, or the problem was partially solved and public interest died down, the organization needs to find another crisis to be able to become relevant again (Ibid.).
In phase 2 there is a predominant focus on maintaining a performative reputation. An agency is perceived to be attacking the status quo with vague policies and objectives, it is therefore important to show its effective work-ethic and resourcefulness. In order to legitimise itself, an agency needs to show that it has the proper expertise, follows the correct procedures, and works as effective and efficient as possible. According to Bernstein (1955) there will now be less interest on the administrative process, meaning there will be less interest in maintaining its legal-procedural reputation, which makes the performative dimension the dominant
dimension. The main goal of an agency in the period of youth is to show its audiences that it can eventually do a good job (Bernstein, 1955). As an agency centralizes on the performative dimension in phase 2, the following hypothesis was constructed:
Hypothesis 2. In Phase 2 agencies are expected to focus primarily on the performative dimension.
In the third phase, called maturity, an organization has formed its own program and adapts to the criticizing audiences. According to Bernstein (1955) an organization “becomes part of the status quo and thinks in terms of the protection of its own system and its own existence and power against substantial change” (p. 87). The actions of the organization will be calmer and and focus more on the management of existing regulation which means that sudden change might pose a great risk. The organization will focus more on the interests and desires of important audiences. Therefore, the organization loses its youthfulness and imagination and falls into a pit of repetition and routine (Bernstein, 1955). Maintaining an acceptable relationship and avoiding collisions with those that are being regulated is a must. The main thought of this phase is that “reliance on conventional standards and a quiet administrative life are preferable to the turmoil of frequent regulatory changes” (Bernstein, 1955, p. 88). Due to the organization’s acceptance of the status quo it will not expand its regulatory program, but focus on enhancing the established regulatory program (Ibid.). According to Bernstein (1955) the agency seeks professionalism among the staff and experts in the field will “vie with each other for dominance in policy-making channels of the agency” (p. 89). Hence, the technical dimension will be the predominant dimension in the phase of maturity. An important note is that despite the focus on expertise and professionalism, the end of the period of maturity is marked with political isolation and a lack of public support (Bernstein, 1955).
Whilst in the previous two phases, the legal-procedural – and performative dimensions were highly important, they are of lesser importance in the third phase. As mentioned before, an agency can fall into repetition and routine instead of looking for an expansion of regulations (Bernstein, 1955). In addition, the interest in maintaining a good moral is non-existent as the interest towards public opinion slowly but surely disappears. Bernstein (1995) argues that an agency is passive when it comes to public interest and shows an immoral attitude (p. 88). Hence, an agency will focus predominantly on maintaining its technical reputation as professionalism and expertise are of great importance. An agency will now try to obtain relevant intelligence
and expertise. In phase 3 an agency centres on the technical dimension. Therefore, the following hypothesis was devised:
Hypothesis 3. In Phase 3 agencies are expected to focus primarily on the technical dimension.
The organisation will eventually transition into the last phase of old age wherein all institutions experience a loss of vitality. Organizations will still try to solve this problem by hiring competent and intelligent personnel to recreate the former level of creativity and imagination. According to Bernstein (1955), regulatory agencies are more susceptible to the development of old age characteristics and collapse earlier than other agencies. Organizations residing in the phase of old age show a passive attitude towards public interest and play it safe instead of providing the public with positive action towards salient problems. The main assumption is that an organizations’ “primary mission is the maintenance of the status quo in the regulated industry and its own position as recognized protector of the industry” (Bernstein, 1955, p. 92). In addition, there will be a process of institutionalized favouritism to certain audiences. All in all, imagination among staff will fade and management qualities will decline. The end of the debility of old age will only occur during a crisis which will call for a need of change within the organization (Ibid.).
In phase 4 the technical dimension regains its importance as it lacks vitality due to the routine it fell in during phase 3. To regain vitality, an agency starts hiring new competent personnel with unique and expertise-based ideas. However, an agency can never regain the same imagination as it had in the first phase, due to its focus on maintaining the status quo. Nevertheless, the agency still wants to appeal to the status quo but is also old enough to be viewed as legitimate. This legitimacy stems from an agency’s efforts to become publicly appealing since the first phase by maintaining and promoting almost all organizational reputations. Simultaneously with this rise of legitimacy, the agency also became more autonomous (Trondal, 2010). The agency will still not care about what the public opinion is and what irrelevant audiences want, which means that the moral dimension is still of least importance. In addition, an agency’s focus on the legal-procedural dimension remains relatively the same as it wants to maintain the status quo and needs to follow the correct rules to do so. As mentioned before, the organization wants to play it safe and wants to provide a positive outcome which maintains the status quo, meaning it cares about maintaining its performative dimension. Therefore, an organization does not have a predominant focus on one dimension.
According to Busuioc and Rimkutė (2019), age and time causes agencies to focus on “a broader reputational outlook” (p. 19). Bernstein (1955) agrees with this statement as he argues that agencies in the period of old age want to attract the most competent personnel, follows the correct rules and procedures, and still want to show effectiveness by reaching their goals. However, due to the agency’s desire to maintain the status quo, it fails to optimize on all dimensions of them, let alone one of them. As mentioned before, the moral dimension becomes the least important dimension. In accordance with the previous reasoning, the following hypothesis was devised:
Hypothesis 4. In Phase 4 agencies are expected to be able to focus on all four dimensions but focus least on the moral dimension.
Additionally, not only Bernstein (1955) focuses on explaining the life cycle perspective. Mortimer (1999) studied it as well and holds a similar perspective to Bernstein as he states that “agencies start to behave in the public interest and then become increasingly inefficient, bureaucratized and more eager to please private interests” (p. 929). Furthermore, this decline in efficiency also comes forth due to the development of bureaucratization. According to Busuioc and Rimkutė (2019), who also seem to agree with Bernsteins’ (1955) argument that the older an agency gets, the less dominant moral reputation becomes, and the more they focus on more than one dimension. In addition, they argue that the technical and performative dimensions will be the most dominant ones, whilst the procedural dimension is less emphasized. All in all, age seems to have a negative effect when it comes to responding to the desires of external audiences, but in turn also provides an agency with the ability to broaden their “toolbox of reputational strategies” (Busuioc and Rimkutė, 2019, p. 20).
Research Design
Four hypotheses are devised according to a combination of the organizational reputation perspective and the life cycle perspective. To test these hypotheses, four European Union agencies are selected. In addition, to be able to analyse the causal relationship between age and the type of organizational reputation management, all agencies have to be as similar as possible. The research design that will be conducted is the Most Similar Systems Design I (MSSDI). This is a small-N comparative design. The logic behind this design is that causality is counterfactual, meaning, that a counterfactual situation needs to be approximated in which only the hypothesized factor differs and everything else remains as similar as possible. To be able to accomplish this, the range of possible relevant factors has to be narrowed down, and alternative explanations have to be ruled out. Measurement validity is an issue in such comparative designs; therefore, every mistake is important. Due to this issue, a blocking and balancing strategy is used. The hypothesized causal relationship is then blocked from alternative influences (Toshkov, 2015). The goal of this design is to deductively test the theory behind the causal relationship between age and organizational reputation.
Most similar Systems Design I
To conduct the MSSDI, the main explanatory variable has to be defined, which in this case is age. The independent variable age is measured through the life cycle perspective. As mentioned before, the life cycle of an agency consists of four phases; gestation, youth, maturity, and old age. Four agencies are chosen from one of these four phases. Alternative variables, e.g. confounding variables, which possibly influence the outcome are controlled by keeping them as similar as possible. The outcome in this scenario is the type of organizational reputation agencies maintain while being in a specific phase in the life cycle. Therefore, the outcome is dependent on the main explanatory variable (Toshkov, 2015). There are four alternative causal factors which are kept similar in all four cases. The first causal factor that is similar amongst the four agencies is the type of agency, whether regulatory or non-regulatory. In this case, all four agencies are regulatory agencies. The second variable is the political system the agencies reside in, which is the European Union. Therefore, all agencies, are European Union regulatory agencies. The third confounding variable is the type of regulation they focus on, which is social regulation, more specifically, regulation revolving around the theme health. The last variable which is kept similar, is the types of tasks the agencies perform.
The four agencies are chosen from the table below. Table 2 depicts the main explanatory variable, namely, the life cycle phases. It also describes the year of establishment of the various agencies and the names of the agencies. Furthermore, the alternative variables are presented, namely, their different task types, whether they are agencies focusing on economic- or social regulation, and last of all, whether their domain is salient or not. There are 26 European regulatory agencies. First, to evenly distribute the phases of the life cycle, the 26 agencies were divided evenly by four, which resulted in about six agencies. This means that phase 4 of old age lasts from 1975 until 1994, phase 3 of maturity lasts from 1995 until 2004, phase 2 of youth lasts from 2004 until 2009, and the last phase from 2010 till 2018. Second, Egeberg and Trondal (2016), discuss three waves of agencification in the European Union, meaning, three moments when there was a proliferation of agencies. The first wave started in 1975, hence, when the oldest agencies were created. The second wave began in the 90s, and the third, but not the last, wave in the year 2000. There is no literature yet on the most recent proliferation of agencies, which now reside in the first phase of the life cycle. According to Egeberg and Trondal (2016), there are 34 regulatory agencies, but because of lack of information on some of them, it is not possible to include them in the research. This would be an interesting point for further research on this topic.
Table 2. The Life Cycle perspective and Features of European Regulatory Agencies
Life Cycle Phases
Established European Union Regulatory Agencies* Task Type** Social regulation/ Economic regulation *** Salient domain /non salient domain*** Phase 4. Old Age: 25-44 years old
1975 European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training (Cedefop)
Advisory Social regulation Non-salient domain
1975 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)
Advisory Social regulation Non-salient domain
1993 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
Social regulation Non-salient domain
1994 European Environment Agency (EEA)
1994 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)
Advisory Social regulation Non-salient domain
Phase 3. Maturity:
16-24 years old
1995 Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) Decision-Making Economic regulation Non-salient domain 1995 European Medicines Agency (EMA) Decision-Making
Social regulation Non- Salient domain 1999 European Union
Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Economic regulation
Non-salient domain
2002 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Advisory Social regulation Non-salient domain 2002 European Maritime Safety
Agency (EMSA)
Enforcement Social regulation Non-salient domain 2002 European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA)
Decision-Making
Social regulation Non-salient domain
Phase 2. Youth:
10-15 years old
2004 European Railway Agency (ERA)
Advisory Economic regulation
Non-salient domain
2004 European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)
Economic regulation
Salient domain
2004 European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)
Advisory Social regulation Non-salient domain
2005 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
Advisory Social regulation Non-salient domain
2005 European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) Enforcement Economic regulation Non-salient domain 2007 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Decision-Making
Social regulation Non-salient domain
Phase 1. Gestation:
0-9 years old
2010 European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
Social regulation Non-salient domain
2010 Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) Advisory Economic regulation Non-salient domain
2010 European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB)
2011 Agency for the
Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)
Advisory Economic regulation
Sources:
* Rimkutė (2019), Building organizational reputation in the European regulatory state: An analysis of EU agencies’ communications. Governance (2019), p. 21.
** Busuioc and Rimkutė (2019), Meeting Expectations in the EU Regulatory State? Regulatory
communications amid conflicting institutional demands. Journal of European Public Policy, Appendix. *** Rimkutė (2019), Building organizational reputation in the European regulatory state: An analysis of EU agencies’ communications. Governance (2019), p. 32-35.
Based on the information provided by table 2, the most similar agencies are the European Environment Agency (EEA) in phase 4, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in phase 3, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in phase 2, and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) in phase 1. As mentioned before, the similarities are based on four factors, namely, the type of agency, the political system the agencies reside in, the type of regulation the agencies focus on, and the task types. When it comes to the type of agency, all four are regulatory agencies. Furthermore, the European Union is the political system the agencies reside in. They all focus on social regulation instead of economic regulation. And the theme health can be related to all four of them. The EEA is an organization focusing on the environment which has an (in)direct impact on people’s health (EEA, 2019). EFSA is an agency controlling food safety which is also a relevant factor for health (EFSA, 2019). The ECDC primarily focuses on battling diseases (ECDC, 2019). Last of all, EIOPA is an agency monitoring insurance and pensions. This includes health insurance, and good pensions are a must for leaving a comfortable and healthy life (EIOPA, 2019). The last variable that is kept as similar as possible is the types of tasks agencies perform. All four, except for EIOPA, focus on advisory tasks. EIOPA however focuses on enforcement tasks. Nevertheless, this is the most similar agency compared to others in the same phase.
2011 European Banking Authority (EBA)
Enforcement Economic regulation
Salient domain 2011 European Securities and
Markets Authority (ESMA)
Enforcement Economic regulation
Salient domain
2011 European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)
Enforcement Social regulation Salient domain
2016 Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA)
Operationalization
The operationalization is done by using table 2 which presents the four phases which are the independent variable. Furthermore, the operationalization of the main explanatory variable is primarily based on Bernsteins’ (1955) definition of the life cycle perspective. Additional sources are Mortimers’ (1999) and Busuioc and Rimkutė’s (2019) studies on the life cycle perspective and the influence of age on agencies. Nevertheless, table 2 is mainly used as a basis. To effectively analyse these four agencies and their relationship with the four dimensions of organizational reputation, an analysis will be conducted using Twitter data from 2018, the 2018 annual reports stating their core activities, and the “about us” section on their websites. The reason 2018 was chosen is due to the fact that not all information of 2019, such as annual reports, has been released. In addition, the dependent variable are the four organizational reputation dimensions which are empirically observed. The measurement tools of Busuioc and Rimkutė (2019a), and Carpenter’s (2010) definitions will be used to devise keywords which are most relevant to all the dimensions; the technical, performative, legal-procedural, and moral dimensions. This list of keywords will refer to important information on how frequently each of the dimensions is mentioned within the agencies. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that this approach does not capture small and more nuanced message that the agencies communicate to audiences. Furthermore, the Twitter releases, the “about us” webpages, and the annual reports are analysed to establish a relationship between the key words and the four agencies.
Table 3. The main keywords related to the dimensions of organizational reputation Technical dimension
reliab*, test*, analy*, assess*, calcul*, data, evidence*, examin*, expert*, investigat*, knowledge, likelihood*, methodolog*, model*, profession*, qualitat*, quantify*, quantitat*, research, rogo*r*, robust*, science*, scientif*, studi*, stud*, technic*.
Performative dimension
deliver*, enforce*, result*, achieved, achievement*, action*, adopt*_decision*, application*, assertive*, complianc*, comply, effecti*, efficien*, goal*, improv*, inspect*, KPI* [Key Performance
Indicator], objectives, oblige*, outcome*, output*, performance*, restrict*, success*, timely*, target*.
Legal-procedural dimension
consult*, formal*, independen*, protocol*, process*, rule*, access_to_document*,
Moral dimension
Protect*, values, committed_to,
access_to_information, appeal*,
conflict*_of_interest*, control_standard*, control_system*, declaration*_of_interest*, internal_control*, internal_operation*, internal_system*, judicial*, legal*, liability, management_standard*,
management_system*, procedur*, provisions, requirement*.
dialogue*, engagement*, ethic*, flexibl*, good_governance, honest*, inclusiv*, integrity*, moral, openness*, precaution*, public_interest*, respect_for, safeguard*, societal*, transpar*, trust*, users
Source: Busuioc, M. and Rimkutė, D. (2019). Meeting expectations in the EU regulatory state?
Regulatory communications amid conflicting institutional demands. Journal of European Public Policy, 1-22; Rimkutė (2019), Building organizational reputation in the European regulatory state: An analysis of EU agencies’ communications. Governance (2019), Appendix II, p.32.
According to Rimkutė (2019), the keywords mentioned in table 3 are the most relevant keywords related to the four dimensions. Therefore, an analysis has to be done on whether these keywords return in the 2018 annual reports of the EU agencies, and on their webpages. A preliminary table has been made wherein the agencies have been placed with the types of reputations that are most likely related to them. This is done by combining the literature of Bernstein (1955) on the life perspective, and Carpenter’s (2010) theory on organizational reputation.
Table 4. Preliminary table on European Union regulatory agencies and the four dimensions of organizational reputation
Legal-Procedural dimension
Phase 1 agency: EIOPA
Performative dimension
Phase 2 agency: ECDC
Technical dimension
Phase 3 agency: EFSA
All reputational dimensions
Phase 4 agency: EEA
Sources: Bernstein (1955); Carpenter (2010).
Table 4 shows that, agencies in phase 1, such as EIOPA, focus on the legal-procedural dimension because it lacks clear policies when it is just established and still wants to obtain legitimacy which is then done by following the correct rules and procedures. In addition, agencies in phase 2, such as the ECDC, predominantly maintain the performative dimension as it wants to legitimise itself by proving it effectively reaches its goals. Agencies in phase 3, such as EFSA, focus on the technical dimension. Agencies in the phase of maturity fall in a process
of routine and mainly focus on enhancing their existing policies, regulations and measures through using the best experts and professionals. Finally, agencies in phase 4, such as the EEA, try to maintain al four reputational dimensions. Agencies residing in the phase of old age have the desire to focus on all four dimensions but fail to optimize on all of them (Bernstein 1955; Carpenter, 2010; Busuioc and Rimkutė, 2019).
Overall, the main keywords have been outlined, and a preliminary outlook has been given of the reputational dimensions and the agencies that are connected with them. In the empirical analysis, the four agencies will be described, and an analysis will be performed to examine if the keywords do in fact relate to the correct agencies.
Empirical analysis
The four European Union agencies all have various reputational dimensions that they focus on (Carpenter, 2010). Despite them being most similar based on being regulatory agencies which centre around the theme health and social regulation, they differ with regards to their age which consequently influences the reputational dimensions they wish to maintain (Bernstein, 1955; Carpenter, 2010). To analyse whether age actually influences the management of organizational reputation by EU agencies, the goals, output, and reputational uniqueness of the agencies have to be discussed. In addition, an analysis will be done on what the agencies primarily mention when trying to promote themselves publicly. This information is obtained from the “About Us” webpage of all four agencies, their latest annual reports of 2018, and their Twitter feed of 2018. The relationship between the agencies’ and the dimensions of organizational reputation is done by analysing the latest post (November/December) of the twitter accounts of 2018. This is due to the lack of availability to the previous posts.
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)
EIOPA is the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority which has the mission of supervising the European Financial sector. It is an independent advisory body with the following main five goals (EIOPA website, Mission and Tasks):
1. Better protecting consumers, rebuilding trust in the financial system;
2. Ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States and the different nature of financial institutions;
3. Greater harmonisation and coherent application of rules for financial institutions and markets across the European Union;
4. Strengthening oversight of cross-border groups;
5. Promote coordinated European Union’s supervisory response.
EIOPA overall monitors potential financial threats across borders and various sectors to ensure that risks are appropriately regulated. The two primary topics are insurance and pensions. EIOPA monitors sound occupational pensions and personal pensions. According to EIOPA “the economic and demographic trends in the European Union challenges the Member States to deliver adequate, safe and sustainable pensions to its citizens” (EIOPA website, Personal Pensions). EIOPA therefore advises in the benefit of all EU citizens to ensure adequate pensions needed for a healthy lifestyle. The harmonisation and coherent application of rules can be
associated with the legal-procedural dimension as this entails that an agency wants to follow the correct rules and procedures (Carpenter, 2010). In addition, the strengthening of oversight and coordination of supervisory response can also be related to this dimension as this entails that EIOPA wants to ensure a sound and correct regulatory process (Carpenter, 2010).
EIOPA’s output and achievements are outlined in the annual report of 2018 (2019). The agency has been able to strengthen the protection of consumers and create sound regulation with regards to insurance and pensions (EIOPA, Annual Report 2018, 2019, p. 16). EIOPA has a high and effective level of supervision and can therefore safeguard the desires of both the policyholders and the consumers. The agency also had a mediating role between national authorities to solve disputes regarding insurance and pensions and has the power to investigate possible breaches of Union law. Furthermore, EIOPA established a Training and Events Programme with seminars and workshops, and public events, for consumers and stakeholders. In addition, EIOPA preserved financial stability through crisis prevention. Financial stability was furthermore preserved through responsible and professional organization and engagement with stakeholders (EIOPA, Annual Report 2018, 2019). The protection of consumers is connected to the moral dimension. Busuioc and Rimkutė (2019) state that the concepts ‘protect’ and ‘consumer’ are directly related to the moral dimension.
In the Twitter feed of 2018, EIOPA underlines that the focus is on providing financial stability as the agency claims that “insurers can be both victim of attack and help companies protect themselves against threats through insurance says @Nathaliedberger. Essential for companies to share information about threats. #EIOPAconference.” (eiopa_europe_eu, 20 November, 2018). To be able to control cyber threats and provide stability, it is important to work together with other institutions. Sharing information can be associated with the technical dimension as more information is synonymous to more knowledge. EIOPA often posts about topics such as hackers and cyber-attacks, and tries to depict that it wants to find a solution to such challenges. An example is “what do central banks and supervisors do to get ahead of hackers? As the threat landscape evolves, we have to increase our sophistication. This includes looking at governance, company culture, and business processes.” (@eiopa_europe_eu, 20 November 2018). The focus of EIOPA on cybersecurity and knowledge illustrates that it also tries to maintain a technical reputation.
A moral dimension is also illustrated in the Twitter feed as EIOPA claims that “understanding preferences of members is a priority for @abppensioen” (@eiopa_europa_eu, 20 November 2018).The fact that preferences of members is mentioned entails that the agency does not only focuses on its own desires, but also on the desires of the consumers. The moral
dimension is again mentioned with the tweet “@kevintt1969 speaking at @eiopa_europe_eu #EIOPAconference on supervisory consistency, maintaining a level playing field & focusing on the consumer.” (@eiopa_europe_eu retweeted @insurance_irl, 20 November 2018). The consumer is continuously mentioned which characterizes EIOPA as an institution that cares about the interests of those that are impacted by its actions (@eiopa_europa_eu).
Even though the technical and moral dimensions are portrayed, elements of the legal-procedural dimension are most often mentioned. EIOPA mentioned that it wants “to enhance the FOC model through focusing on the right principles in a more integrated Europe.” (@eiopa_europe_eu retweeted @insurance_irl, 20 November 2018). Following the correct principles could be associated with the legal-procedural dimension as this dimension entails that an agency should focus on the correct rules and procedures. In addition, EIOPA mentions that a supervisor is necessary in order to understand the correct terms related to sustainable finance (@eiopa_europe_eu, 20 November 2018). In addition, EIOPA claims that supervision from a foreign supervisor such as EIOPA might seem strange to consumers, it is therefore important “to improve cooperation between national supervisors where there are cross-border issues” (@eiopa_europe_eu, 20 November 2018). This supervision is necessary for the processes to go as legal and accordingly as possible (@eiopa_europe_eu).
The predominant dimension that represented in the annual report and the webpages of EIOPA is the legal-procedural dimension. As mentioned before, the third goal of ‘greater harmonisation and coherent application of rules for financial institutions and markets across the European Union’ can be ascribed to the legal-procedural dimension. The agency tries to show the audiences that its willing to engage with them whilst providing and following the correct procedures and applying the correct rules. (EIOPA, annual report 2018, 2019). However, whilst the other two sources depict the legal-procedural dimension as the dominant one, the Twitter feed paints a different picture as the moral- and technical dimensions are often mentioned (@eiopa_europe_eu). Besides analysing the relationship between EIOPA and the legal-procedural dimension, EIOPA’s reputational uniqueness should also be explained to understand the relevance of the agency. The reputational uniqueness revolves around what an agency provides that others do not, which makes an agency therefore ‘unique’ (Rimkutė, 2019; Carpenter, 2010). The reputational uniqueness of EIOPA lies with its efficient cooperation with stakeholders, its effectiveness with regards to analysing what is most beneficial to consumers, and creating sound regulation whilst focusing on what the correct rules are. Nevertheless, EIOPA is an EU agency which has no clear ideas or policies, this makes its broad reputational
repertoire quite chaotic as it does not highlight in a distinct manner what its reputation(s) are. Its young age could be the cause of this chaotic nature (Bernstein, 1955; Carpenter, 2010).
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
The ECDC was established in 2005 and is the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control with the mission of maintaining and strengthening the European Unions’ defence mechanisms against infectious diseases. It provides scientific advice, surveillance on diseases, and focuses on epidemic intelligence (ECDC website, About ECDC). As ECDC contributes to ensuring the health of European Union citizens, it has the following six goals (ECDC website, About ECDC):
1. To tackle antimicrobial resistance; 2. To improve vaccine coverage in the EU;
3. To support the European Commission and the Member States in addressing the Sustainable Development Goals in the area of HIV, TB and hepatitis;
4. To further support the European Commission and the Member States in strengthening the preparedness for cross-border health threats;
5. To focus on strategic partnerships to create synergy and avoid duplication of work; 6. To further enhance ECDC’s operational performance and monitoring.
These six goals all relate back to the performative dimension. The goals state that the ECDC has a clear and specific purpose and wants to realise them by supporting the European Commission, which is the executive branch of the European Union. In addition, the sixth goal clearly states that the ECDC wants to enhance its operational performance and monitoring (ECDC website, About ECDC). Furthermore, in order to be as effective as possible, the ECDC works with various experts and national health protection bodies based in Europe. Through this partnership the ECDC is able to collect and evaluate relevant technical and scientific data, and exchange information and expertise. Hence, the technical dimension seems to play somewhat of a role in maintaining a performative reputation.
The major outputs and achievements of 2018 are outlined in the Annual Report of the Director (ECDC, Annual Report 2018, 2019). First of all, the ECDC has established various disease programmes trying to tackle the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, to prevent HIV, to control tuberculosis, and to create a vaccine for every season and various diseases. Furthermore, its output is related to disease surveillance which is done through the EPHESUS project. EPHESUS stands for Evaluation of European Union/European Economic Area public health surveillance systems (ECDC, Annual Report 2018, 2019, p. 21). It monitors 52 disease
surveillance systems in 30 countries. In addition, ECDC also focuses on detecting diseases through epidemic intelligence. The annual report of 2018 (2019) voices the ECDC’s desire to perform as effectively as possible. This is furthermore shown by the three other factors that the ECDC has been successful in which are its preparedness, its response, and the scientific advice that is provided (ECDC, Annual Report 2018, 2019). Sufficient and effective preparedness is a must when it comes to public health. The ECDC therefore created a national preparedness plan for Romania and provided technical support to the European Commission. In addition, to ensure great response, the ECDC involved specialists on infectious diseases from various Member States. The last notion, scientific advice, is free of cost through the ECDC’s open-access policy (ECDC, Annual Report 2018, 2019).
In the Twitter feed of 2018, the ECDC also voice its desire to be as effective as possible with concerns to its performance. On the 20th of November 2018 the ECDC posted that the “tools and knowledge to end #endHIV and #AIDS exist. We need to keep using them” (@ECDC_HIVAIDS, 30 November 2018). Especially the second part of the quote voices a need for good performance through using the existing tools. In addition, the ECDC continuously mentions the European Commission (EC) which is the executive branch of the EU. Mentioning the EU Commission displays the ECDC’s desire for a sufficient performative reputation. In addition, the next quote displays that it works together with other institutions, such as the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for better performance and realisation of its goal of battling hepatitis. “ECDC joined forces with @EMCDDA on several occasions to support countries in their efforts to #ACHIEVENOHEPEU2024” (@ECDC_HIVAIDS, 4 December 2018). The terms ‘achieve’, ‘effective’, ‘efficiency’ often return on the ECDC’s Twitter feed which are concepts closely connected to the performative dimension (@ECDC_EU; Busuioc and Rimkutė, 2019). An example is “Effective treatment either eliminates or suppresses the viruses” (@ECDC_EU, 23 November 2018). In addition, the manner of speech of the ECDC is short, straightforward and centralizes on ‘action’. An example is “Towards European-wide genomic surveillance of #gonorrhoea?” (@ECDC_HIVAIDS, 21 November 2018).
The ECDC clearly and publicly voices its attitude and activities both ‘online’, on the webpages and Twitter feed, as ‘offline’, in the annual report of 2018 (ECDC, 2019). Besides this factor, it is important to discuss the reputational uniqueness of the ECDC to understand why this agency stands out. The reputational uniqueness relates back to its goals and outputs. The uniqueness of the ECDC clearly lies in its capacity to monitor and advise on the matter of various diseases and disease control. Its role and functions are highly important which is already
shown by the advisory requests made by European Union Member States. In addition, an agency in phase 2 of Youth such as the ECDC centres predominantly on its performative reputation (Bernstein, 1955; Carpenter, 2010). This is exactly what the ECDC primarily mentions, as the agency mentions ‘offline’, through the annual report, that its focus lies on enhancing its performance and assisting the European Commission (ECDC, annual report, 2018). In addition, it clearly voices the performative dimension ‘online’ as well.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
EFSA was established in 2002 and is the European Food Safety Authority. The agency was set up due to a food crisis that occurred in the late 1990s. EFSA is an agency that provides scientific advice for European legislation. Topics such as food safety, nutrition, animal health and welfare, plant protection, and plant health are covered. In addition, the agency focuses on the environment with regard to the impact of the environment on the biodiversity of animal and plant habitats. Analysing and communicating such risks is therefore an important part of the agency’s mandate (EFSA, About Us, 2019). EFSA’s mission is three-fold. It contributes to the safety of food within the EU by (EFSA, 2015, p.4):
1. Providing EU risk managers with independent, up-to-date scientific advice on questions linked to the food chain;
2. Communicating to the public on its outputs and the information on which they are based; and
3. Cooperating with Member States, institutional partners and other interested parties to provide consistent advice to increase trust in the EU food safety system.
Besides these three contributions, the core task of EFSA is to deliver ‘fit-for-purpose’ advice which contributes to both public health and the desires of stakeholders (Ibid., p. 6). The most recent and relevant achievements and outputs of EFSA are outlined in the EFSA Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2018 (2019). The first achievement is the increased involvement of the public in scientific work provided by EFSA. This was done by creating more engagement through social media which created an increased engagement of stakeholders in scientific activities (EFSA, Annual Report 2018, 2019, p. 26). Another achievement was the creation and enhancement of new and existing databases, and the publication of comprehensible literature and reports (EFSA, Annual Report 2018, 2019, p. 32-33). A third achievement was related to accumulation of knowledge. EFSA focused on more scientific cooperation, capacity building, and management of expertise. There has been more inter-agency cooperation, EU cooperation, and international cooperation. In addition, expertise has been managed by creating a
competency-based approach to attract talent and manage the careers and talents of staff (EFSA, Annual Report 2018, 2019, p. 37- 43). Hence, the technical dimension is primarily evident on the webpage and in the annual report of 2018 (2019).
In the Twitter feed of 2018, EFSA clearly promotes the technical dimension. An example is the tweet “SeasonsGreetings2018 from EFSA. We look forward to another year of working together to deliver trusted science for safe food.” (@EFSA_EU, 31 December 2018). According to this tweet, science is the main theme for the following year. In addition, EFSA claims that it “needs many experts for its #RiskAssessment: now and in the future. We facilitate learning and experience.” (@EFSA_EU retweeted @HVerhagen_EFSA, 20 December 2018). The term ‘experts’ returns often in the Twitter feed of EFSA. The agency primarily states that it is searching for many experts in the areas of bioinformation, toxicology, and food safety (@EFSA_EU, 2019). Health professionals are also continuously mentioned, and that these professionals are in need of EFSA’s expertise. A tweet embodying this claim is “policymakers, health professionals and scientists can all benefit from our #DietaryReferenceValues finder. (@EFSA_EU, 13 December 2018). A second tweet related to this is concerning EFSA’s opinion that “health professionals around the world use our #DietaryReferenceValues to provide expert #nutrition advice.” (@EFSA_EU, 14 December 2018). EFSA’s 2018 Twitter feed clearly depicts the accuracy of the third hypothesis which claims that agencies in phase 3 primarily focus on the technical dimension, which EFSA essentially does.
Furthermore, the reputational uniqueness of EFSA shall be described to indicate the agency’s importance. The three main achievements of EFSA depict the reputational uniqueness of EFSA as the agency is highly focused on expertise and information-sharing. None of the other three agencies focus as highly on expertise as EFSA, especially with regards to the theme of food safety. As EFSA is an EU agency residing in the third phase of Maturity, it should predominantly focus on the technical dimension (Bernstein, 1955; Carpenter 2010). Its goal is to accumulate as much knowledge as possible and use the best expertise (Carpenter, 2010). The achievements were primarily based on accumulating knowledge and the management of expertise, which relates back to the technical dimension (EFSA, annual report 2018, 2019). According to Rimkutė, it is correct that EFSA focuses primarily on its technical reputation (Rimkutė, 2019, p. 16). The analysis of the annual report of 2018, the webpages, and the Twitter Feed is in line with the third hypothesis.
The European Environment Agency (EEA)
The EEA is the European Environment Agency. It was established in 1993, but the work seriously began in 1994. The EEA is an information gathering agency for the actors which have to eventually develop, adopt and implement policies on the environment (EEA, About Us, 2019). The last hypothesis states that older agencies such as the EEA try to maintain various reputations and are more successful in satisfying multiple audiences (Bernstein, 1955; Mortimer, 1999). Furthermore, as the EEA is one of the oldest agencies’, it should already have a clear mandate and mission (Bernstein, 1955). The main task is to “provide sound, independent information on the environment” (EEA, About Us, 2019). In addition, the mandate of the EEA consists of two notions, namely (EEA, who we are, 2019):
To help the Community and member and cooperating countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability; and
To coordinate the European environment information and observation network (Eionet). Eionet is a partnership network of the EEA, its member, and cooperating countries. It has been an effective network which created strong institutional cooperation across various levels. Its members within the network agreed to common content and have a shared infrastructure (EEA, About Eionet, 2019). Based on these two missions embedded in the mandate, the EEA established three key goals for tackling environmental challenges, namely (EEA, Annual Report 2018, 2019, p. 16):
1. To be the prime-source of knowledge at the European level for informing the implementation of European and national environment and climate policies;
2. To be a leading knowledge centre for the knowledge needed to support long-term transition challenges and objectives; and
3. To be the lead organization at the European level that facilitates knowledge-sharing and capacity-building in the field of the environment and climate change.
To ensure the realisation of these three goals, the EEA works closely together with national agencies and ministries that have a focus on the environment, and works together with specialists and experts on topics regarding the environment (EEA, About us, 2019). The output and achievements of the EEA are discussed in the Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2018 (2019). The main achievements of the year are based on informing policy implementation, assessment of systematic challenges, knowledge co-creation, sharing and use, and on EEA management. Informing policy implementation entails the improvement of content and
