Revealing research on EU body with great power over legislation, but lack of transparency

Newswise — According to recent research by Brigitte Pircher at Linnaeus University, the European Commission established the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in 2015 to enhance EU legislation as an autonomous entity. However, the issue is that the board has accumulated significant authority, is susceptible to the sway of different interest groups, and exhibits insufficient transparency.

The intricacies of the decision-making process in the EU are indisputable. Typically, the adoption of EU legislation involves a collaborative effort between the European Parliament and the European Council, with guidance from proposals put forth by the European Commission.

Not widely known is the existence of a cadre of unelected representatives within the Commission who hold considerable sway over the legislative process. These specialists constitute the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB).

Brigitte Pircher, an expert in EU decision-making and associate professor of political science at Linnaeus University, states that the RSB holds an overly influential veto position in the EU legislative process, providing non-elected experts in the Commission with too much power. Furthermore, lobbyists may attempt to exert influence on the Board during their work, which poses an even greater concern given the lack of transparency surrounding the Board's operations.

Risk of bias

Pircher became intrigued by the RSB due to its relative obscurity, even within Brussels. Moreover, societal actors have raised allegations of the Board's apparent bias towards big industries. Consequently, Pircher undertook a new study examining the RSB's operations and influence.

A clear instance of the issue is the EU's Directive on Due Diligence for Corporate Sustainability.

"According to my research, the RSB had engagements with lobbyists prior to the introduction or submission of the legislative proposal to lawmakers. Major corporations, including those from Denmark and Sweden, attempted to influence the RSB who twice provided unfavorable opinions and opposed strict measures. Ultimately, the law was significantly diluted and presently only pertains to 0.2% of European companies. The RSB's involvement in the decision-making process led to the law becoming politicized and polarized."

Pircher acknowledges that determining the precise effects is challenging, but notes that the RSB's configuration and function make it susceptible to lobbying, and there is a lack of public accountability or transparency.

"The RSB's viewpoints are solely disclosed upon the completion of a proposed law. As a result, there is a lack of transparency regarding the RSB's activities and the development of its opinions, even for lawmakers. For instance, members of the European Parliament are not permitted access to these records. Consequently, I contend that the current structure of the RSB exacerbates the politicization of EU policy-making conducted covertly. This issue, as highlighted in the study, is particularly concerning given the RSB's absence of public accountability."

Reduce the power

To address the issues identified by Brigitte Pircher, the most critical measures are to diminish the Board's authority and enhance transparency in the process.

"The European Parliament and the European Council should solely oversee the legislative process. The RSB's role should be limited to that of an expert panel without the power of veto. Additionally, the RSB should ensure complete transparency and provide access to its records at every stage of the decision-making process."

More information

• The study is part of the research in the project The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board
• The study is financed by Arbeiterkammer Wien, Austria, and LobbyControl, Germany