Brussels lobbyists adopt revised code of ethics 

The new self-regulatory code of conduct was officially launched by SEAP on 10 February and transmitted to the presidents of the Commission, Parliament and Council in Brussels. 

The revised code lists various ethical principles which signatories decide to abide by on a voluntary basis. The main provisions of the revised code are:

• Sanctions ranging from verbal warning to exclusion from SEAP
• Obligatory training of SEAP members on the new code
• Overseeing by a committee in charge of ensuring compliance with the code

However, some issues appear to remain as to the scope and effectiveness of the code:

• The code is voluntary, lots of lobbyists can perfectly live without signing up to it
• The subscribers list remains individual and nominative, which means organisations or lobbying firms are in principle excluded from the scope of the rules
• The subscribers' list only includes representatives from industry or trade federations, lobbying firms and corporations, leaving NGOs outside the scope of self-regulation
• Sanctions can only go as far as exclusion from SEAP

Brussels lobbying veteran and CEO of CLAN Public Affairs Daniel Guéguen had until now been rather sceptical about the loose self-regulation of lobbyists in Brussels. But this time, he seems to think real progress has been made. Speaking to EurActiv, he said the revised code "has evolved a great deal" compared with the previous one.  "It is more "thought through" than its predecessor, Guéguen commented. However, he believes the revised version is "only one positive step" in the right direction, noting en passant that the sanctions are only limited to exclusion from SEAP.

The main reason for revising the code was the need to impose sanctions, said June O'Keefe, the chairman of the SEAP committee which drew up the new code. She concedes that potential exclusion from SEAP would not prevent renegade lobbyists from pursuing their activities. But she pointed out that, in the small Brussels village, "reputation is everything." The threat of exclusion will therefore be a powerful driver for improved behaviour, she said. 

However, she admitted, "there is only so far we can go". Asked about the sanctions, which only apply to individuals, O'Keefe pointed out that they would in any case have "a spin off effect" on the firms to which individual lobbyists belong. "We are exploring membership for firms," on the model of PAP (Public Affairs Practitioners), she added. 

But she brushed aside the possibility of disclosing lobbying information to the general public on the model of the US Lobbying Disclosure Act. "We don't want to go down the US route where every meeting and every lunch is disclosed," she said. 

When asked about the possibility of signing NGO lobbyists to the code, instead of just corporations or consulting firms, O'Keefe said they are welcome to join but are usually uninterested because they have their own networks and access points with the EU institutions.

Olivier Hoedeman from Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), stated: "At a first glance, very little seems to have been changed in this revised code. For instance, the code still has nothing to offer in terms of transparency towards the general public, which is very disappointing. The need for EU lobbying disclosure legislation remains clear". 

Tom Spencer from the European Centre for Public Affairs (ECPA) welcomed the stepping up of the SEAP code and obligatory training as good news. "The more incentives there are for good lobbying behaviour, the better," he commented. However, he does not seem to consider the revised code as a silver bullet. "There will still be weapons of mass destruction used", he said, because with new countries and new EU fields of competences, new players are entering the Brussels game. He suggested the following rule of thumb: "If you cannot tell your children at breakfast about what you're doing, then there is something wrong."