36,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Wiley-VCH GmbH
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
In the new edition of his standard work, the founder of one of the most successful lobbying companies in the European Union (EU), Prof. Klemens Joos, bundles experience acquired over more than three decades to form a scientific theory on governmental relations. It focusses on the insight that, in view of the increasingly complex decision-making structures of the EU, the most precise possible knowledge of decision-makers and decision-making processes is at least equally as important to success as the content aspects of interest representation. In a new chapter, the author sets out the formula for science-based interest representation developed by him from his practical experience. With the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, the EU de facto became a state territory stretching from Portugal to Finland and from Ireland to Cyprus. The European Parliament became an equal-status decision-maker alongside the Council of the European Union (Council). The previous co-decision procedure was elevated to become the standard procedure ("ordinary legislative procedure"). The so-called qualified majority (55 percent of the EU member states which simultaneously represent at least 65 percent of the EU population) was introduced for all important areas in the Council. As a result, the outcome of decision-making processes has become largely incalculable for the actors on the "European Union stage" - the EU member states, EU regions, companies, associations and organisations. The second edition includes a new chapter, in which Prof. Klemens Joos makes the variables of successful interest representation even more tangible on the basis of his scientific formula: at the latest since the Treaty of Lisbon, the basic prerequisite for successful interest representation in the EU involves the continuous and close intermeshing of the affected party's content competence (of the four "classic instruments" of interest representation: corporate representative offices, associations, public affairs agencies, law firms) with process structure competence (i.e. the EU-wide maintenance of the required spatial, personnel and organisational capacities as well as strong networks across institutions, political groups and member states) on the part of an independent intermediary. The likelihood of success can be increased exponentially if success is achieved, firstly, in committing to the concern of an affected party through a change of perspective such that the positive effects on the common good are shifted into the foreground for the decision-makers in the EU (perspective change competence) and, secondly, in successfully integrating the concern into the crucial decision-making processes at the political level and continuously supporting it (process support competence). Guest authors: This work includes guest contributions from Prof. Christian Blümelhuber (Berlin University of the Arts), Prof. Anton Meyer (formerly LMU Munich), Prof. Armin Nassehi (LMU Munich) and Prof. Franz Waldenberger (Director of the German Institute of Japanese Studies, Tokyo) as well as a foreword by Prof. Gunther Friedl (Dean of the TUM School of Management) and a preface by Prof. Thomas F. Hofmann (President of TU Munich).
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1177
Ähnliche
2nd edition 2024All books published by WILEY-VCH are carefully produced. Nevertheless, authors, editors, and publisher do not warrant the information contained in these books, including this book, to be free of errors. Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements, data, illustrations, procedural details or other items may inadvertently be inaccurate.
Library of Congress Card No.:applied for
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
© 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH, Boschstraße 12, 69469 Weinheim, GermanyAll rights reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form – by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means – nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers. Registered names, trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not specifically marked as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at <http://dnb.d-nb.de>.
Print ISBN: 978-3-527-51138-9ePub ISBN: 978-3-527-84591-0
Translation: Deman Übersetzungen GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany/Ian W. Rhodes, WortSchatz Übersetzungen, Lengerich, GermanyCover Design: Schindler Parent GmbH, Meersburg, GermanyDesign of Illustrations: Agentur zur schönen Gärtnerin, München, GermanyCover Picture: (c) KEEFFECT Design GmbH & Co. KG, Konstanz, GermanyProject Management and Editing: boos for books, Evelyn Boos-Körner, Schondorf am Ammersee, Germany
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
Note
Welcome to the second edition
Foreword to the second edition
Introduction
The world has changed …
Overview: the individual sections of the book
1 Set down in a formula: successful representation of interests in complex decision-making processes
1.1 Ways out of the complexity trap of political decision-making structures
1.2 Political rebirth of the EU
1.3 Successful representation of interests in the complex EU decision-making system
1.4 Conclusion
Notes
2 Fundamental thoughts on the topic of interest representation and stakeholders
2.1 Differences of interest, stakeholders and translation conflicts
2.2 Stakeholder orientation: perspectives of corporate management beyond the classic shareholder value approach in the face of more complex framework conditions
2.3 Importance of the intermediary in interest representation derived from mutual market relationship theories
Notes
3 Representation of interests: an approach. Fundamentals and introduction
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The representation of interests as a structured communication process
3.3 Legitimation of interest representation
3.4 Summary
Notes
4 Politics as a process: paradigm shift from content competence to process competence in interest representation
4.1 Introduction and question
4.2 Content as the key element of politics?
4.3 Classic dimensions of politics: polity, policy, politics
4.4 Procedural dimension of politics
4.5 Temporal dimension of politics
4.6 Political actors
4.7 Political networks
4.8 Laws of (political) decisions
4.9 Summary
Notes
5 European Union as the target of interest representation: political system and peculiarities in comparison with member state systems
5.1 Introduction and question
5.2 Short history of European integration
5.3 Fundamental changes due to the Treaty of Lisbon
5.4 Integration theories and the multi-level system of the European Union
5.5 Political stakeholders in the European Union
5.6 Summary
Notes
6 Legislative procedure and other legal regulations as the framework of interest representation in the European Union
6.1 Introduction and question
6.2 Bases of legislation in the EU after Lisbon
6.3 Access to the institutions of the European Union
6.4 Summary
Notes
7 Governmental relations: process management in practice
7.1 Introduction and question
7.2 General
7.3 Essential element of successful interest representation: stakeholder management
7.4 Interest representation instruments
7.5 Implementation in practice: overall model for structuring effective and efficient interest representation
7.6 Summary
Notes
8 Training: ways to becoming a governmental relations manager
8.1 Introduction and question
8.2 Framework conditions and general requirements on a lobbyist
8.3 Requirements on a lobbyist
8.4 Status quo of vocational education and further training for lobbyists
8.5 New approaches in education and further training
8.6 Summary
Notes
9 Case studies on interest representation projects with structural process support
9.1 Case 1: “advertising bans for spirits, beer and wine?”
9.2 Case 2: “regulation for defining the modalities for achieving the objective of reducing the CO
2
emissions of new passenger cars by 2020”
Notes
10 Future challenges
10.1 Professionalism means translation competence
10.2 Knowledge infrastructures
10.3 Open policy – on a foundation of interest representation
Notes
11 Summary and outlook
11.1 Interest representation as a business management asset for companies, associations and organisations
11.2 Objectives of interest representation (involvement in decision-making processes)
11.3 Framework conditions – reform due to the Treaty of Lisbon
11.4 Outlook: urgent need for reform to overcome the governance crisis within the EU
Notes
Appendix: List of abbreviations
List of figures
References and further reading
Index
About the authors
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: The formula for success
Figure 1.2: Mountain example – successful representation of interests in sim...
Figure 1.3: Mountain example – complexity trap after the Treaty of Lisbon
Figure 1.4: Formula for success for the management of successful interest repres...
Figure 1.5: Example of a OnePager for use at member state level (Germany)
Figure 1.6: Example of a OnePager for use at EU level
Figure 1.7: Mountain example – successful representation of interests in com...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1: Hub and spoke model of a company
Figure 2.2: Selected contributions on the development of stakeholder theory ...
Figure 2.3: Characteristics of the stakeholder approach
Figure 2.4: Three aspects of the stakeholder theory and their relationship
Figure 2.5: Input-output model of the company versus the stakeholder model a...
Figure 2.6: The company and its stakeholders
Figure 2.7: Value contributions of different stakeholders to organisational ...
Figure 2.8: The sources of organisational wealth from the perspective of thr...
Figure 2.9: Core elements of the three licences for operationalising the sta...
Figure 2.10: Possible classification of stakeholders
Figure 2.11: The stakeholder view of the company
Figure 2.12: Central-instrumentalistic stakeholder approach: The company at ...
Figure 2.13: Stakeholder group-oriented strategies in the situational contex...
Figure 2.14: Porter's value creation chain extended by social and political ...
Figure 2.15: Transformation of branding logic induced through service-domina...
Figure 2.16: Origin and legal status of socio-political stakeholder groups...
Figure 2.17: Example definitions of intermediaries
Figure 2.18: Intermediation for the reduction of transaction costs
Figure 2.19: Simplification effect due to the integration of intermediaries...
Figure 2.20: Clusters within a social network
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1: Interest representation as an intermediary system
Figure 3.2: Term delimitations
Figure 3.3: Representation of interests as an element of corporate communication
Figure 3.4: Addressees in the political environment – Federal Republic of Ge...
Figure 3.5: Addressees in the political environment – European Union
Figure 3.6: Possible uses of interest representation for companies
Figure 3.7: The political system in its environment
Figure 3.8: Interest representation as a system of negotiation for forming c...
Figure 3.9: Code of Conduct (in Annex I of the interinstitutional agreement ...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1: Discourse: the relative value of content
Figure 4.2: The three dimensions of politics
Figure 4.3: Change in the importance of process and content competence for s...
Figure 4.4: The ideally typical phases of the policy cycle
Figure 4.5: Mathematical equation of a symmetrical bell curve
Figure 4.6: Approximately normal, empirical distribution of the milk yield of...
Figure 4.7: Bell curve with standard deviations from the mean
Figure 4.8: Decisions by sector, from “rejection on principle” to...
Figure 4.9: Decisions of a political decision-maker: example of an EU Commiss...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1: Council of Europe
Figure 5.2: From ECSC to Europe of 27 states – the history of the Eur...
Figure 5.3: Treaty of Lisbon
Figure 5.4: Differences between the Constitutional Treaty and the Treaty of ...
Figure 5.5: After the Treaty of Lisbon – only a very few EU policy ar...
Figure 5.6: The multi-level system of the EU
Figure 5.7: The European Parliament (status: 02.03.2023)
Figure 5.8: The Council of the European Union
Figure 5.9: The European Commission (status: 04.01.2023)
Figure 5.10: Internal organisation of a Directorate General using the exampl...
Figure 5.11: Political opinion-forming as part of the European Union's insti...
Figure 5.12: The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1: Council's and Parliament's powers to act after the Treaty of Lis...
Figure 6.2: The ordinary legislative procedure
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1: Political acceptance markets
Figure 7.2: Classification model for stakeholders
Figure 7.3: Selection of stakeholders with political potential which could i...
Figure 7.4: Key player matrix
Figure 7.5: Example of a European umbrella organisation: CEFIC
Figure 7.6: Possible structural interest representation instruments at Europ...
Figure 7.7: Data from selected companies on expenditure for interest represe...
Figure 7.8: EU officials' pay in euros per month
Figure 7.9: “Honorare in der Unternehmensberatung” study concerning daily ra...
Figure 7.10: Comparison of external service models
Figure 7.11: Process-oriented interest representation instruments
Figure 7.12: Information mediation at European level, subdivided according t...
Figure 7.13: Quality benchmarks for effective interest representation
Figure 7.14: Co-ordination of the interest representation instrument mix by ...
Figure 7.15: Structural establishment of company-specific interest represent...
Figure 7.16: Implementation of a specific interest representation project
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1: Fundamental requirements of stakeholder groups on interest repre...
Figure 8.2: Fundamental requirements of politicians on interest representation
Figure 8.3: The six modules of a possible Master in Governmental Relations
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1: Preliminary schedule of the “advertising ban for alcoholic bever...
Figure 9.2: Timeline/complete legislative procedure (“advertising ban for al...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1: Classic interest representation instruments
Figure 11.2: Change in the importance of process and content competence for ...
Guide
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
Welcome to the second edition
Foreword to the second edition
Introduction
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Appendix: List of abbreviations
List of figures
Index
About the authors
End User License Agreement
Pages
3
4
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
Preface
Back in 1990, political Europe was still called the European Community, the European Union had not yet been “born” and the common currency, the euro, did not yet exist either when, while still a student at Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU) in Munich, I founded EUTOP International GmbH (the present EUTOP Group) as a service provider for structural support of the work of lobbyists at European and member state level.
Since then, the exciting topic of interest representation amongst the institutions of the European Union has held me in its thrall professionally and scientifically, and as an author and publisher. In 1997, I obtained my doctorate on the topic Representing the Interests of German Companies vis-à-vis the Institutions of the European Union from the Faculty of Business Administration at Munich's LMU (Munich School of Management) – a pioneering work at the time, since there were practically no scientific publications to draw on. Based on an organisational science approach, my doctorate dealt with the necessity of structural, process-oriented interest representation at a point in time when the complex multi-level system of the European Union, based on a variety of different formal and informal processes and procedures, was just beginning to emerge. However, it was already clear to keen observers at that time that content-related work alone – i.e. disregarding the procedural aspects of political decisions – would no longer lead to success in interest representation. What was already hinted at in my book, “Lobbying in the new Europe”, published in 2011, was extensively analysed and explained on publication of the first edition of “Convincing Political Stakeholders” in November 2015 – the paradigm shift from content competence to process competence triggered in political interest representation at the latest when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1st December 2009.
The initial idea for this book came to me during my “Convincing Political Stakeholders” master seminar as a visiting lecturer at the Munich School of Management at LMU (2013–2021) whilst searching for a quick and in-depth introduction to the topic. The first edition of the book has since made its way into over 900 libraries around the world and has therefore surpassed my expectations by far. 2015 was also the year in which I brought over 25 years of pioneering scientific work on process competence together in an illustrative formula for successful interest representation. Unfortunately, it only proved possible to hint at the findings that go hand-in-hand with this formula in the first edition due to time constraints. In recent years, I have been able to further differentiate my scientific approach to process competence. On switching to the TUM School of Management in April 2021 and, at the latest, on being appointed as a visiting professor for “Business Administration – Political Stakeholder Management” at the Technical University of Munich, I made the firm decision to update this work and incorporate these new findings into a second edition. This has led to the writing of a new chapter, which gives the reader a quick introduction to the central topics of the book. Above all, however, the “formula for success” is introduced, therefore granting a comprehensive insight into over three decades of practical experience in political interest representation for the first time in this form.
The book can be used in various ways by its readers: it offers students and interested members of the public a quick introduction to process-oriented interest representation amongst the institutions of the European Union.1 At the same time, it is intended to serve lobbyists, decision-makers in companies, associations and organisations as well as legislators and executives as a navigation tool in their daily work even better than the first edition.
My thanks go above all to the co-authors of this book, first and foremost to Professor Anton Meyer, Professor of Business Administration and Chair of the Institute for Marketing at LMU Munich until March 2021, and Professor Armin Nassehi of the Institute of Sociology at the LMU Faculty of Social Sciences, both of whom updated their respective chapters for the second edition. In the form of Professor Franz Waldenberger, Director of the German Institute for Japanese Studies, and Professor Christian Blümelhuber, Professor for Strategic Organisational Communication and Dean of the University of the Arts in Berlin, I was also able to recruit two authors for the second edition who take a pioneering look into the future with their contributions.
I am particularly delighted about the new welcome by Professor Thomas Hofmann, President of the Technical University of Munich, and the new foreword by Professor Gunther Friedl, Dean of the TUM School of Management. Readers are given a special introduction to the themes of the second edition here. Special thanks go to Dr Christian Fackelmann and Arne Leimenstoll – they supported the development of the new chapter in various ways and provided me with valuable tips in revising the book for the second edition.
Finally, I would like to thank Evelyn Boos-Körner for her outstanding organisational support. Once again, particular thanks go to Markus Wester for the support provided by my publisher, Wiley.
Munich, October 2023
Professor Klemens Joos
Note
1
I ask all readers not to be offended by the generic masculine form. I have used it to make the book easier to read for you. Naturally, this refers to people of all genders. For the sake of completeness, I would like to add that certain of the book's passages have already been published in some of my earlier works. They have been adapted for this book.
Welcome to the second edition
Representatives of interests in the fields of business, politics and society are finding themselves in an increasingly complex environment whose interconnections and interdependencies make a comprehensive understanding of decision-making situations difficult. However, sustainable commercial activity necessitates taking all of the interests of primary and secondary stakeholders into consideration and looking at decision-making situations holistically, including the intended consequences and undesired results of actions. In negotiating situations whose complexity makes it difficult to obtain a clear grasp of the interrelationships, successful problem-solving also urgently necessitates process competence in addition to content competence.
Based on competencies and international experience obtained over a number of decades in politics, business and academia, Professor Klemens Joos and his co-authors impressively show in this book how successful lobbyists in complex decision-making systems – companies in the multi-level system of the European Union, for instance – have to structure their negotiating strategy and procedural organisation. In doing so, the authors add flexibility to the previous concepts of rigid sociological, political science and economic functional mechanisms of lobbying work and skilfully combine theoretical and methodological bases with specific orientation aids for business practice.
Professor Klemens Joos also succeeds in bridging this gap between theory and practice in his work as a visiting professor for Political Stakeholder Management at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). At the TUM School of Management, he contributes extensively to training students who think entrepreneurially and act sustainably and to opening up interdisciplinary, professional horizons to our young talents. I would like to thank Klemens Joos from the bottom of my heart for passing on his unique expertise and experience to our students and, with this book, to an interested professional readership.
Just as our students are inspired by Klemens Joos, I would like to wish all readers many new insights and hope that these spur them to success in the future.
Munich, September 2023
Professor Thomas F. Hofmann
President of the Technical University of Munich
Foreword to the second edition
Political interest representation is of increasing relevance to internationally operating companies. Political decisions have far-reaching effects on companies and these effects are often not taken into consideration sufficiently in the context of the political decision-making process. This is particularly true of decisions within the European Union. Here, the high complexity of the institutions with their multifarious interactions leads to the low transparency of the actual decision-making processes. The decisions made at this level, such as the ban on sales of new cars with combustion engines as of 2035 or the EU taxonomy regulation, which defines criteria pertaining to ecologically sustainable investments, set key framework conditions for corporate activities and must be taken into consideration by companies in their decisions.
Companies have to be familiar with these interrelationships and understand the interests of their various stakeholders. Only this enables them to establish an appropriate strategy for their own political interest representation. This is where this book from Professor Klemens Joos and his co-authors comes into play. It convincingly describes how companies can represent their interests amongst the institutions of the European Union. To do this, the author not only develops a theoretical model, but also a practical guideline that companies can use for orientation.
Klemens Joos succeeds once again in treading new ground with this second edition of his book. He tangibly packs the important distinction between content competence and process competence, without which successful interest representation is not possible, into a formula that reduces the complex task of interest representation to its core and the central relationships. In the form of Professor Armin Nassehi, Professor Anton Meyer, Professor Franz Waldenberger and Professor Christian Blümelhuber, he has also succeeded in recruiting four extremely distinguished academics to contribute to this book; in individual sections, some involving further co-authors, they describe their views on diverging interests, stakeholder management and future developments in the area of interest representation.
The content of this book has not only been put into practice extremely successfully over a number of years by a company founded by Klemens Joos. It has also been incorporated into the teaching at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich and the Technical University of Munich, where generations of students have been privileged to learn the conceptual and theoretical fundamentals of managing political stakeholders under the instruction of Klemens Joos. On the basis of topical case studies, he has succeeded time and again in transforming this complex material into a memorable learning experience.
I am grateful to Klemens Joos for once again sharing his vast wealth of knowledge with a broad public in the form of this book. I believe that reading this book broadens one's horizons in many regards, namely when political institutions and decision-making processes are involved and when different interests are to be reconciled in an appropriate manner through the use of relevant competencies. I therefore hope that the second edition of this book by Klemens Joos encounters an interested readership and enjoys widespread distribution.
Munich, September 2023
Professor Gunther Friedl
Dean of the TUM School of Management
Introduction
The world has changed …
The first two decades of the new millennium have led to far-reaching upheavals of a political, social and technological nature. The world has once again become vastly more complex, challenging and uncertain across all areas of social experience. Change processes are becoming increasingly dynamic and unclear. A few key terms such as coronavirus crisis, Ukraine war or energy crisis are sufficient to make the extent of these changes clear. Politicians are required to act quickly and effectively without losing sight of long-term political objectives such as digitalisation, climate protection and global competitiveness.
The focus of political action is therefore shifting increasingly to the European level, since these problems are transnational and can no longer be resolved at individual state level. This simultaneously reveals the nation state's increasingly restricted ability to act. The result is a change in the relationships between nation states which goes hand-in-hand with increasing interdependence and thus a decrease in nation state sovereignty.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the development of political Europe, from the alliance of the six Western European states back in the 1950s to the complex, multi-level system of the European Union, which is attempting to integrate the interests of (still) its current 27 member states, their regions and around 450 million citizens. This gives rise to a variety of decision-making levels, barely transparent formal and informal procedure paths and a gradual decrease in the importance of the individual member states. This complex multi-level political system intensified even further when the Treaty of Lisbon came into effect on 1st December 2009, raising it to a new level of complexity. New, complex rules of procedure, increases in competence for the European Parliament, the introduction of the qualified majority in almost all areas in the Council of the European Union (Council) and much more besides have led to a sharp rise in the number of decision-makers involved in a political process. Consequently, the outcome of European decision-making processes has become even more unpredictable than before. These processes appear intransparent and inaccessible.
These are the framework conditions and challenges with which political interest representation is faced today. In view of the complex political and legal circumstances of the EU and the multitude of actors and decision-making levels, interest representation work can no longer restrict itself to just the executive and legislative levels of an individual member state. Instead, the focus is increasingly shifting from Europe's capitals to the “European capital city” of Brussels. The affected parties – companies, associations and organisations, but also the EU member states and EU regions themselves – have recognised this. They are all setting up representative offices in Brussels. More offices, more lobbyists – but is it a case of “the more the better”?
The increase in the number of lobbyists in Brussels is also going hand-in-hand with an increase in “content competence” (see Section 1.2.1 and Section 4.2). If it were assumed that the primary objective of interest representation in a decision-making process is to achieve a specific result using content, i.e. factual arguments, in practice, the focus would be less on “process competence” (see Section 1.3) than on content competence. The core focus of the activity of associations and organisations, but also of economic lobbyists such as corporate representative offices and external service providers (e.g. public affairs agencies and law firms) is on content-related work: participation in public consultations, drawing up exhaustive argumentation papers and expert opinions, execution of media campaigns. However, this practice appears to be extensively divorced from the EU's significant developmental trends, as these are much more concerned with procedural questions (“processes”) of European policy: which levels of the EU are involved in political decisions? At which level (EU or member state) are decisions ultimately made? Which institutions decide on which topics with which voting modalities?
Added to this is the EU's continuous increase in competence: ever more areas of policy are falling under the complex decision-making procedures of this dynamic multi-level system, involving supranational (European), member state and regional levels. The actors at the relevant levels do not act in isolation from each other in this. Instead, co-operation and a willingness to compromise are required if an actor wishes to achieve his objectives, each of which is determined through constitutional and political competencies, potential influences and interests. To be able to act successfully against this backdrop of decision-making processes in the EU, a lobbyist must possess extensive process competence. In addition to knowledge of the material – formal and informal – decision-making processes, he must also have corresponding access options (networks across institutions, parliamentary groups and member states) at all decision-making levels throughout the EU. With the “EU construction site” now stretching from Portugal to Finland and from Ireland to Cyprus, there are only a very small number of actors who can manage this.
“Convincing political stakeholders” deals with these questions and challenges. In addition to analysing the multi-level system of the EU and the changes to the political and legal framework of interest representation related to reforms, particularly to the Treaty of Lisbon, the book offers a practical guide to interest representation at the EU institutions. The book is structured as follows:
The second edition of this work includes a new chapter that introduces and explains the formula for successful interest representation in complex decision- making systems that has been developed by the author.
Chapter 1
shows that the previously addressed content competence is no longer sufficient for solving a political, economic or societal problem in many areas. What is instead needed is what is called process competence, which – as will be shown – consists of three sub-components: process structure competence, perspective change competence and process support competence.
Chapter 2
follows with fundamental thoughts on the topic of interest representation and stakeholders from Nassehi and Meyer with his co-authors (in alphabetical order) Meindl, Neumann, Wagner (née Jakić) and Wagner. This involves matters of diverging interests in a modern society in which the different perspectives and interests of stakeholders are articulated simultaneously and encounter one another on an equal footing. In view of complex framework conditions, perspectives beyond those of classic shareholder values are shown from the point of view of corporate management, with special consideration of political stakeholders. Finally, the importance of the intermediary in interest representation is analysed, derived from theories on market exchange relationships.
Chapter 3
defines the necessary terms and deals with questions concerning the function and legitimation of interest representation in political systems, particularly the exchange of interests and information at EU level.
Chapters 4
,
5
and
6
show the complexity of the framework conditions for interest representation in the EU. They demonstrate the vital importance of processes in politics and show the complexity of the interactions of EU institutions with the actors of civil society in the decision-making process. To achieve this, all relevant actors and institutions as well as the sometimes complicated formal and informal (decision-making) procedures and legislative processes are introduced.
Chapters 7
and
9
are designed as “practical chapters”. They are dedicated to the specific practice of interest representation and introduce the instruments required for modern stakeholder management (
Chapter 7
), whose application is then explained on the basis of case studies (
Chapter 9
). Use of the interest representation instruments has to be learnt.
Chapter 8
therefore describes the challenges currently faced by lobbyist training and shows an approach to the future structure of this and the development path to becoming a professional “governmental relations manager”.
Section 10.1
by Nassehi,
Section 10.2
by Waldenberger and
Section 10.3
by Blümelhuber can also be read in this context.
Finally,
Chapter 11
is a conclusion of the significant information contained in this book and a concluding plea for the outstanding importance of process competence to successful interest representation in the EU in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The overview subsequently inserted here is intended to provide the reader with a quick navigational aid to reading this book and to enable the specific selection of those sections of relevance to him. The central, new
Chapter 1
of the second edition and the thesis-like summaries of
Chapters 3
to
8
should be pointed out to readers who have very little time. At least an overview of the central content of the book can therefore be obtained by reading just a few pages.
Overview: the individual sections of the book
Chapter 1 – Set down in a formula: successful representation of interests in complex decision-making processes
Chapter 1 begins with fundamental thoughts on the importance of process competence, particularly in the complex multi-level system of the EU. It shows that there is a negative correlation between the complexity of a decision-making process and the relevance of individual content considerations for its outcome. The more complex the situation, the more the content logic is subordinated to the process logic in a decision-making process. This central finding is expressed in an illustrative formula for successful interest representation. How this formula works is shown based on the legislative processes of the EU.
Chapter 2 – Fundamental thoughts on the topic of interest representation and stakeholders
Chapter 2 offers a general introduction to the topic of interest representation and stakeholders. In their guest contributions, Nassehi, Meyer et al. reveal fundamental thoughts and ideas:
2.1 Differences of interest, stakeholders and translation conflicts (Nassehi)
Nassehi initially explains the divergence of interests in a modern society in which the different perspectives and interests of stakeholders not only exist simultaneously but also encounter one another on an equal footing – there is no longer any hierarchical structure of stakeholder interests. What is true or false is always dependent on the situation. For interest representation, this means that a concern also has to be translated into the perspective of the other party to enable it to be formulated in such a way that a decision is possible in the first place.
2.2 Stakeholder orientation: perspectives of corporate management beyond the classic shareholder value approach in the face of complex framework conditions (Meyer, Wagner, Wagner, (née Jakić) and Neumann)
Meyer, Wagner, Wagner (née Jakić) and Neumann describe the commercial importance of stakeholder orientation and the stakeholder approach, which will be more important for modern corporate management in the future than the present, classic shareholder approach. They make clear the relevance of politics as a stakeholder for companies and thus the importance of functioning communication between companies and stakeholders. This communication is vitally necessary for companies to obtain their “licence to operate” and also maintain it in the long term.
2.3 Importance of the intermediary in interest representation derived from mutual market relationship theories (Meyer and Meindl)
Meyer and Meindl integrate interest representation into economic theory and explain the existence and importance of intermediaries within mutual market relationships, segueing into the requirement of an independent intermediary in interest representation.
Chapter 3 – Interest representation – an approach: fundamentals and introduction
The third chapter delimits the various areas of communication and interest representation – public relations, public affairs, general lobbying and governmental relations – from each other in terms of their different addressees, objectives, instruments and time frames. Chapter 3 also deals with questions of legitimation and the status of interest representation in political systems.
Chapter 4 – Politics as a process: from content to process competence
Chapter 4 deals with the importance of processes in politics and the reshaping and reformulation of political contents through processes. Against this backdrop, the procedural dimension of politics must be given increased consideration in interest representation than was previously the case. This part of the book is therefore also a plea for the necessity of a paradigm shift in interest representation, away from purely content-oriented arguments (content competence) towards increasingly process-oriented work (process competence), and thus ultimately the intermeshing of content and process competence.
Chapter 5 – The European Union as the target of interest representation: political system and peculiarities in comparison with national (member state) systems
The fifth chapter presents the institutional framework in the multi-level system of the EU. It shows how this multi-level system with its numerous actors and decision-making levels has developed historically and is to be classified in terms of political theory. Chapter 5 also offers an overview of the way in which the individual EU institutions function and the legal framework of their actions.
Chapter 6 – Legislative procedures and other legal regulations as the framework of interest representation in the EU
Chapter 6 offers an overview of the legal framework of interest representation in the EU. In addition to the formal legislative procedures, supplemented by informal procedures such as the informal trialogue between the EU Commission, European Parliament and Council, the options available to lobbyists to access the EU institutions, as regulated by EU legislation, are also described. Alongside the information on institutions provided in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 is therefore also an important basic prerequisite for understanding the “complexity trap of the EU”.
Chapter 7 – Governmental relations: process management in practice
Chapter 7 explains the structural instruments (who takes action) and the process-oriented instruments (which interest representation tools are used) of interest representation. The reader is provided with a detailed insight into the governmental relations “toolbox”.
Chapter 8 – Training: ways to becoming a governmental relations manager
The paradigm shift in interest representation, from content to process competence, demands new training methods for lobbyists. Specific governmental relations manager training would push forward the professionalisation and definition of the vocation of lobbyist and simultaneously meet the requirements of politicians and lobby groups (such as companies, associations, organisations, etc.). Such specialised training could also make a significant contribution to increased transparency while improving the image of interest representation. Chapter 8 shows how this training could be structured in the future.
Chapter 9 – Case studies
The ninth chapter deals with the practical implementation of the book's contents and shows, on the basis of two fictitious example cases, how interest representation projects can be successfully structured through the complementary implementation of the relevant client's content-oriented interest representation structures and the external process competence of an intermediary.
Chapter 10 – Future challenges
10.1 Professionalism means translation competence (Nassehi)
Nassehi's contribution deals with the competencies which new elites have to develop in a complex society. Today and in the future, professionalism above all means the competence of a change of perspective and being able to mediate and “translate” between various functional and professionalisation areas.
10.2 Knowledge infrastructures (Waldenberger)
In his contribution, Waldenberger explains that good decisions not only necessitate information, but also knowledge of what information is relevant and reliable and how this information is to be interpreted and used with regard to the respective decision problem. For the future, he outlines functioning knowledge competition and the knowledge structures that are required for this and still have to be developed on the basis of relevant quality standards.
10.3 Open policy – on a foundation of interest representation (Blümelhuber)
Based on open policy processes, Blümelhuber regards political interest representation as an expression of the democratisation and legitimisation of politics, as the boundary between the public and private sector is becoming increasingly permeable. In his view, the open policy approach therefore has the potential to provide a counterbalancing argument to the narrative concerning the EU's lack of democracy in the future.
Chapter 11 – Summary and outlook
Chapter 11 again recapitulates the central findings of the book, particularly the importance of process competence and its three sub-components, the Treaty of Lisbon, the complex decision-making structures and procedures of the EU for interest representation and the paradigm shift from content to process competence. In conclusion, the author takes a look into the future and points out the reforms that are urgently necessary to overcome the continuing governance crisis within the EU.
1Set down in a formula: successful representation of interests in complex decision-making processes
1.1 Ways out of the complexity trap of political decision-making structures
1.1.1 Problem-solving in complex situations: process trumps content
Politics, the economy and society are becoming increasingly networked, digital, global, heterogeneous and dynamic. The complexity of their internal and external interrelationships and dependencies and the challenges posed by these for stakeholders of all categories are growing continuously. The risks associated with political and economic actions are also increasing significantly for the actors – in terms of the material, spatial and temporal dimensions of the consequences of actions, the related damage potential and, by no means least, the potential irreversibility of the damage caused and the associated potential for social conflict (see also Section 8.2.1).
Against this background, the requirements of sustainable action strategies for affected decision-makers are undergoing fundamental transformation. While a situation-based approach has always been needed to find the “right” solutions and avoid “wrong” activities, actors are increasingly finding themselves literally overwhelmed by the holistic assessment of both the decision-making situation itself and the consequences – opportunities and risks – of their own actions regardless of whether they are related to societal concerns, political objectives or business interests.
That situations can change continuously and have to be reassessed is not new. Facts and opinions on an issue about which an actor needs to make a decision are not and never have been stable. New data arise, previously significant factors decline in importance over time, a surprising change of sentiment leads to a shift in political majorities and personal motives suddenly become more important to certain stakeholders than factual considerations, etc. What is new is that the sheer number of the different levels and factors that have to be taken into consideration in business or political decisions due to their relevance to a decision-making process has increased exponentially as have their interrelationships and dependencies.
The growing number of societal stakeholders with increasingly divergent interests at the same time is partly responsible for this. In modern societies, these different interests and perspectives not only occur at the same time, but are also on an equal footing. This means that the same issue is usually viewed differently by individual stakeholders – what seems right to one appears wrong to another. This sharply opposed way of looking at the same problem is understandable and legitimate. Ultimately, what is regarded as true or incorrect is always dependent on the situation and therefore also the beholder. This is one of the research focuses of the scientific work undertaken by Nassehi, who deals with the issue of “translation conflicts” in Chapter 2.1 of this book.
In addition, the assessments of stakeholders in politics, business and society are subject to continuous change. What appears right to a stakeholder today may be rejected tomorrow due to a change in his environment, values and other decision-making factors in complex situations, and vice-versa. According to Nassehi, whoever wishes to achieve his objective must factor in the logic of the other party. To express it differently, there are no simple solution approaches in complex situations and decision-making processes. It is therefore not only content factors that are important; instead, the relevance of process factors has increased significantly in decision-making and problem-solving. Influenced by the degree of complexity of the problem environment, the likelihood of a solution approach proving successful is therefore no longer solely – often, not even extensively – dependent on content factors (i.e. particularly not on convincing content-based arguments concerning issues such as job security, technology leadership, price stability or efficiency, etc.). In many areas, this so-called content competence can no longer be identified as an adequate condition for solving a political, economic or societal problem. What is instead needed is what is called process competence, which – as will be shown – consists of three sub-components: process structure competence, perspective change competence and process support competence. The availability of these three sub-components of process competence is crucial for solving problems in complex decision-making processes.
1.1.2 Stakeholder versus shareholder approach
From the perspective of a company, the sharp increase in the complexity of the political, economic and societal environment necessitates a fundamentally new orientation in its own decision-making processes. Contrary to what was the majority view prior to the turn of the millennium, it is no longer sufficient to exclusively take the interests of the company's shareholders into consideration. In order to be successful, a company must instead always incorporate the totality of the interests of its primary stakeholders (i.e. employees, the representatives of their interests, customers and suppliers, etc. in addition to shareholders) and its secondary stakeholders (representatives of politics, administration, media, science, etc.). This paradigm shift from a shareholder orientation to a stakeholder orientation is one of the focuses of Meyer's research; he examines the importance of the stakeholder approach to modern corporate governance in Chapter 2.2.
This examination focuses on the secondary stakeholders. Convincing political stakeholders has become increasingly important for companies over the past decades. The financial crisis, climate change, the coronavirus pandemic, military aggression of diverse types and the energy supply crisis, etc. are just some of the issues that are proving relevant down to the very last details of daily corporate decisions. No company acts alone in a vacuum, but is reliant on a favourable, at the very least a reliable, regulatory environment for its economic success.
Against this backdrop, this assessment shows that – at the latest since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in 2009 – the successful management of companies is almost impossible without a knowledge of political decision-making processes and European legal framework conditions. The importance of process competence has become part of the focus of decision-makers within companies.
1.1.3 Decisions without decision-makers: complex multi-level system of the European Union (EU)
The majority of political systems have always exhibited a certain degree of networking, mutual dependencies and multi-layered structures. The European Union (EU) is a prime example of the sharp increase in just such complexity and the related challenges for decision-making processes. The decision-making system of the EU is unique and can only be understood against the backdrop of its actual composition: it is a geographical union consisting of 27 different member states with uniform external borders, a cultural union with 24 different official languages, an economic union with a common internal market and, by no means least, it is above all a political union whose decisions are made on at least three levels, the supranational, the national and the regional levels.
The political system of the EU is therefore especially suitable for examining the importance of process competence in complex systems (see also Chapter 4). The Treaty of Lisbon is particularly interesting for research purposes: as the legal basis of decision-making processes in the EU, it ultimately heralded in the paradigm shift from content competence to process competence. Chapters 1.2 and 1.4 in the following show that there is a negative correlation between the complexity of a decision-making process and the relevance of individual content considerations for the result. The more complex the situation is, the more the content logic in a decision-making process is subordinated to process logic.
1.2 Political rebirth of the EU
1.2.1 Treaty of Lisbon as the background to a paradigm shift
The European Union as we knew it came to an end on 1st December 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. Figuratively speaking, what had until then been the relatively loose confederation of the European Union was de facto transformed into the United States of Europe, with a “state territory” extending from Portugal to Finland and from Ireland to Cyprus, even if this fact does not tally with the impression of many citizens. This discrepancy can ultimately be explained by the major effort undertaken at EU member state level to downplay their own loss of influence and power as a consequence of the Treaty of Lisbon.
This new political reality and boundless economic freedom go hand-in-hand with complex structural changes, which become challenges in the daily political routines of the EU member states, companies, associations and other civil society organisations. The framework conditions for successful communication between business and politics have changed dramatically due to the Treaty of Lisbon. Meanwhile, this paradigm shift has often not actually become apparent to the decision-makers – in the sense of being taken into account in their own decisions and the development of their own sustainable action strategies. Previous strategies for introducing one's own concerns into political processes in the European Union and having them taken into consideration there are increasingly failing, often to the incomprehension of the parties involved.
In the light of this, it is urgently necessary to deal more intensively than ever before with the changed decision-making processes and the increasingly unclear formation of political majorities within the EU institutions. What this means for the “classic” instruments of interest representation, particularly the activities of associations and NGOs, but also of business lobbyists such as corporate representative offices and external service providers (e.g. law firms and public affairs agencies), also needs to be analysed. The focus of these classic instruments of interest representation clearly lies on content work: participation in public consultations, preparation of exhaustive argumentation papers and legal appraisals, conducting media campaigns, etc. They are therefore geared extensively towards content competence (see also “content competence” in Section 4.2 and “Structural instruments” in Section 7.4.1).
1.2.2 Reorganisation of decision-making processes due to the Treaty of Lisbon
So what has changed for stakeholders on the “stage of the European Union” due to the Treaty of Lisbon, which previously unknown problems have emerged for the classic instruments of interest representation and how can the concerns of companies continue to be successfully represented or supported in the European Union despite these challenges?
The key changes can be summed up as follows:
Firstly, the European Parliament's political influence increased significantly – it became an equal-status decision-maker in virtually every area alongside the Council of the European Union (Council): with the Treaty of Lisbon, the previous co-decision procedure was elevated to become the regular procedure (“ordinary legislative procedure”). The three EU institutions are involved in this procedure: the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. In this process, majorities are formed across all EU member states and political groups. This involves a fundamental difference compared to the legislative and executive decision-making processes of the EU member states: there is no structural legislative majority in which the executive can shape and implement legislative and executive agendas with its “governmental majority”. The face-off between the government and the opposition that is familiar from the parliamentary democracies of the EU member states is therefore foreign to the EU.
Secondly, the Council has been able to make decisions with a qualified majority in many important areas (internal affairs, justice, agriculture, foreign trade) since the Treaty of Lisbon. Unlike before, an individual EU member state is no longer able to prevent a decision in these areas. A crucial lever for blocking political decisions in the areas concerned has therefore disappeared.
Finally, a new, influential decision-making forum has developed since the Treaty of Lisbon: the “informal trialogue” (see Section 6.2.3 and Section 6.3.4.1.3). The European Parliament, Council and EU Commission have come to an arrangement, without any primary law basis, to conduct informal consultations, seek majorities and plan the result in advance prior to the first reading of a legislative act. The legislative procedure in the EU has been significantly speeded up in this way – around 89 percent1 of all legislative acts are already concluded successfully after the first reading in the Parliament and therefore make their way into the Official Journal of the EU (with respect to the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, see in particular Chapters 5 and 6).
To date, many stakeholders on the “stage of the European Union” have only adapted inadequately to all of these sweeping changes. Many EU member states, EU regions, companies, associations and organisations face the problem that the outcome of decision-making processes within the European Union has become largely incalculable for them: each legislative and executive agenda in the EU has to be regarded in isolation. The fixed content lines that are set down in coalition agreements at member state level, for instance, do not exist at EU level, nor is there any one (or very few) ultimate decision-maker (see in particular Section 6.3.4.1).
In view of the variety of legislative and executive acts, this entails the risk of a significant loss of involvement for the stakeholders at EU level. For instance, the framework conditions for commercial actions at EU level are extensively determined by directives, regulations, White and Green Papers from the EU Commission, implementing legislative acts and delegated legislative acts, including decisions in cartel and state aid legislation as well as through guidelines, duties and numerous other legislative and executive measures (see in particular Section 4.4.1 and Chapter 6). If a stakeholder lacks both an overview of and access to the decision-making processes underlying the respective legislative act, its concern will at best be taken into consideration on a random basis.
1.2.3 Effects on interest representation from the changed framework conditions of the Treaty of Lisbon
In a democracy, stakeholder groups have the right to put their individual concerns to politicians. All involved benefit from this continuous exchange between the societal-commercial and the political spheres: only in this way are the parties that bear political responsibility able to assess whether and how they can achieve the greatest possible benefit for the common good with their decisions.
This “principle of being heard” also applies in the democracy of the EU. At the latest since the Treaty of Lisbon, however, the previous, simple decision-making paths within the European Union have been superseded by a complex multi-level system. Day-to-day political life is determined not only by the 27 EU member states, but also by numerous mutual relationships between the 705 Members of the European Parliament and the 27 European Commissioners as well as their more than 32,000 employees.
One example of the new decision-making process within the EU that has particularly far-reaching consequences for the affected parties (companies, associations, etc.) is the previously described “informal trialogue”: they or the representatives of their interests are not formally heard in one of the most important phases of the decision-making process. Only the representatives of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council come together in this informal framework in order to determine common lines of compromise. It is precisely such opaque, informal decision-making processes with which classic interest representation, with its focus on content work, is no longer able to cope.
The informal trialogue is only one example and a synonym for a variety of informal processes in complex political systems. The classic instruments of interest representation in a simple political system no longer function in the complicated new world of the EU democracy after the Treaty of Lisbon. It has therefore become considerably more difficult, laborious and unpredictable to successfully represent the interests of the affected parties amongst the political decision-makers. In many cases, their concerns do not even reach the right addressees any longer or fail due to other reasons. This increases the risk of the affected parties no longer being able to get through to the decision-makers with their content, resulting in significant financial burdens or competitive disadvantages. Figuratively speaking, the complex decision-making processes within the EU can be compared to a labyrinth, for which the classic instruments of interest representation have no map, meaning a lack of understanding of the complex decision-making processes in the sense of process competence (see Section 6.3.4.1).
Triggered by a leap in the complexity of European decision-making processes in an increasingly heterogeneous environment, we are therefore experiencing a paradigm shift – a sharp increase in the importance of the “process” in politics compared to “content-based arguments” (see Chapter 4). While content and arguments remain important even in complex political procedures, their communication by the right person to the right addressees, at the right time, in the right place and in the right manner, with knowledge of the objectives, interest positions and mindsets of the decision-makers as well as the informal and formal decision-making rules is crucial to their promotion and inclusion.
