New talents join Team Public Matters

/in /by

Public Matters expands with two new Account Executives: Katja Salzer Levi and Valérie Mendes de León.

About Katja

Katja studied European Studies at the University of Amsterdam. She also completed a minor in Political Science at Grenoble Institute of Political Studies, and did an internship at ABN AMRO Mees Pierson. After her bachelor she obtained a master’s degree in Political Science at the Free University of Amsterdam, and completed the Traineeship at Public Matters. Both Katja and Public Matters were very pleased with her Traineeship and we are therefore pleased to welcome her as an Account Executive. Katja will be focusing on the transport and tech sector in particular.

About Valérie

Valérie received her master’s degree in International Politics from Leiden University. She previously worked for the Province of South Holland as a project manager for digitalization. Valerie already has some experience in the Public Affairs profession through previous internships and at the Young Climate Movement. At Public Matters, Valérie will be advising clients in various sectors, including tech and climate.

We are very happy with our new colleagues and wish them all the best in their new positions!

EU reaches agreement on Digital Markets Act (DMA)

/in , /by

Last night, Thursday 24 March, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission reached an provisional agreement on the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA). After a record legislative journey of only 15 months, this effectively ends the trilogue negotiations – some technical details are still being worked out at official level.

We have previously written about the substantive debates in Brussels here and here. What are the results of the negotiations, how to proceed with enforcement, and what is the timeline from now on?

 

Big Tech curbed

The DMA shifts the focus of combating abuse of market power in the digital economy from an ex-post approach via antitrust cases at EU or Member State level, to ex-ante regulation, including a list of do’s and don’ts for so-called gatekeepers in the tech sector. Gatekeepers are companies with a market capitalisation of at least €75 billion or annual turnover of €7.5 billion, and at least 45 million monthly users.

The DMA will have a significant impact on the market power of the big tech companies, as soon as the legislation has been adopted. Users will be allowed to remove pre-installed apps, gatekeepers will no longer be allowed to favour or ‘rank’ their own services when searching for them and app stores will have to allow alternative payment options for consumers. In addition, messaging services such as Telegram, Whatsapp and iMessage should be able to interoperate and communicate with each other.

Companies that fail to comply with the obligations can be fined up to 10 percent of the worldwide annual revenues. In case of repeated violations, this can increase to 20 percent and the Commission can even prevent the company from acquisition efforts.

 

Effective enforcement

Throughout the negotiation process, the need for effective enforcement became an increasingly common refrain in Brussels. A solid legal text is one thing, but if companies and organisations cannot be held to the letter and spirit of that text, it’s toothless. During trilogue negotiations, therefore, extra attention was paid to the provisions that addressed enforcement.

In the end, it was decided that the European Commission will have the central role in enforcement. The Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) is already investigating how it can (re)structure its internal organisation to carry out this task. It is also likely that new Commission employees will have to be hired specifically for the enforcement of the DMA. MEP Schwab, rapporteur for the EP, even suggested that the Commission should hire people from national competition authorities.

In the Netherlands, the Personal Data Authority, the Consumer and Market Authority, the Media Authority and the Financial Markets Authority took a shot across the bow by establishing the Digital Regulation Cooperation Platform (SDT). This cooperation must, among other things, facilitate the enforcement of the DMA, but also of the DSA and the Data Act.

Time will tell to what extent the relevant national and EU authorities will be able to properly enforce the DMA.

 

Timeline

Now that the political negotiations are over, a formal process of enactment, translation and legalisation will commence. The DMA is expected to enter into force in October, but the main new obligations (Art. 5 and 6) will only become effective in 2023, allowing companies to take preparatory measures. The timeline (as expected):

April/May Confirmation of provisional agreement by Council and IMCO (internal market) committee in European Parliament
September Plenary vote by the European Parliament
September/October Publication of the DMA in the EU Official Journal
October Entry into force of the DMA, 20 days after publication
April 2023 Provisions of the DMA become effectively applicable, 6 months after entry into force

Public Matters advises companies and other organisations that are active in the tech sector, or which are impacted by the DMA, DSA and other tech related legislation. See this page for more information.

UPDATE DUTCH POLITICS: local parties big winners of municipal elections

/in /by
  • On March 14, 15 and 16, the Netherlands went to vote for the municipal elections. Taking place exactly one year after the last national elections, these elections can be seen as a first benchmark for the newly formed coalition. But have they survived the test?
  • Since the national elections in the beginning of last year, a lot has happened. In addition to the ongoing pandemic we witnessed the longest formation period in Dutch history – which led to a lot of criticism – saw the housing crisis reach new heights, and are now dealing with the situation in Ukraine. All these events might have impacted the election results to some extent.
  • Prior to the elections, voter turnout was expected to be slightly lower than the previous local elections, posibly due to the war in Ukraine. In the past weeks this led to less media coverage than in other election years. On the other hand, the polls were open for three days this year, in order to manage the crowds with regards to COVID. This in turn was expected to have a positive effect on voter turnout. In the end, of the 13,6 million eligible voters, ultimately 50,3% showed up to the polls, which is historically low. During the last local elections in 2018 voter turnout was 54,1%.
  • The conclusion of these municipal elections is that once again, local parties are the big winners. In the last election in 2018, they already received 28.6% of the votes, this year they have secured 36,5%. Coalition parties VVD (Liberal Conservatives) & CDA (Christian Democrats) turned out to be the biggest national-level parties operating at local level, but they’ve also lost seats to the locals. For example, in 2018 they both got over 13% of the vote, this time it’s 11,5% (VVD) and 11,2% (CDA). A minor victory was seen, among others, by PvdA (Labour), which did particularly well in the capital Amsterdam and became the largest party there.
  • The preliminary results of the municipal elections can be found in the table below. In this table, the results of national parties are compared to the results of last national elections (March 2021). It’s good to note that although the table does not include local parties – as they cannot be compared to number of seats in parliament – they are still to be considered the “big winners”. The table shows how the national political parties performed in these local elections.
  • Most national parties remain fairly stable. A small gain is visible for the PvdA (Labour), especially in Amsterdam, the PvdD (Animal Party), FVD (Right-wing Eurosceptics), SGP (Christian Conservatives), BIJ1 (Left-wing), Volt (Pro-European), JA21 (Conservatives) and Belang van Nederland of Wybren Haga (Conservatives). A loss is in sight for PVV (Freedom Party), GroenLinks (Green Left), ChristenUnie (Christian), 50PLUS (Elderly party).
Percentage Number of seats
Exitpolls Parliament Difference Exitpolls Parliament Difference
VVD / Liberal Conservatives 18,1 22,7 -4,6 27 34 -7
CDA / Christian Democrats 17,6 9,3 8,3 26 14 12
PVV / Freedom Party 1,4 11,4 -10 2 17 -15
D66 / Liberal Democrats 13,5 16 -2,5 20 24 -4
GroenLinks / Green Left 13,1 5,3 7,8 20 8 12
SP / Socialists 4,3 6 -1,7 6 9 -3
PvdA / Labour 12,1 6 6,1 18 9 9
CU / Christian 6,1 3,3 2,8 9 5 4
PvdD / Animal party 3 4 -1 5 6 -1
SGP / Christian Conservatives 3,6 2 1,6 5 3 2
DENK / Multicultural 1,6 2 -0,4 2 3 -1
FvD / Right-wing Eurosceptics 1,7 3,3 -1,6 3 5 -2
Volt / Pro-European 1,1 2 -0,9 2 3 -1
JA21 / Conservatives 0,4 2 -1,6 1 3 -2
Other 2,4 4,7 -2,3 4 7 -3
Total 100 100 150 150

 

Public Matters welcomes six new colleagues.

/in /by

Public Matters recently welcomed a number of new colleagues. Sander van Golberdinge started as Senior Director, Bart Hendriks as Account Executive and former Trainee Judith ter Kuile returned as Account Executive. Public Matters is also pleased to welcome three new Trainees, namely Wouter Nelen, Paul Schrama and Stefan Ruiter.

About Sander, Bart and Judith

Sander worked as Senior Public Affairs Manager at Grodan and was previously Director at Detailhandel Nederland. Before that, he was a policy advisor for the Dutch government and a member of staff for the VVD (Conservative Liberals). At Public Matters, Sander will mainly focus on industry, agriculture and chemistry.

Bart obtained his Master’s degree in Management of the Public Sector with a specialisation in Public Affairs at Leiden University and did an internship at another public affairs consultancy. Bart also has experience in teaching and training at the Jonge democraten (youth branch of D66, Liberal Democrats) . At Public Matters, Bart will be advising clients in various sectors, including healthcare.

Judith has a bachelor’s degree in International Business from the University of Groningen and a minor in International Politics and Economics from Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology (ITAM). She then completed her master’s in Strategic Management at the Erasmus University and spent the past year as a Trainee at Public Matters, where she focused on energy and climate.

About Wouter, Paul and Stefan

Wouter is following the master programme Political Science with a specialisation in Dutch politics. Previously, he did an internship at the public affairs department of the municipality of Leiden and was campaign coordinator for Volt Leiden in the 2021 Dutch parliamentary elections. At Public Matters, Wouter will be working with clients in the field of tech and the healthcare sector.

Paul obtained a bachelor’s degree in political science and a minor in journalism at Leiden University. He is currently following the master programme Public Sector Management – Public Affairs at the same university and did a public affairs internship at the Dutch Startup Association: a trade association for start-up and scale-up companies in the Netherlands. At Public Matters, Paul will mainly focus on supporting clients in the field of real estate, tourism and transport.

Stefan completed his bachelor’s degree in political science at Leiden University. He is active in the CDA (Christian Democrats) in Leiden and last year he was the national secretary of the national CDA youth branch (CDJA). As Trainee at Public Matters, Stefan will mainly be working with clients in the field of energy and climate.

We are pleased that these new colleagues are joining Public Matters and wish them success in their new positions!

Photo by Ketut Subiyanto via Pexels

A conversation with Niels Arntz – co-founder of Temper

/in /by

As part of the 20th anniversary of Public Matters, we have developed a book which includes interviews with various interviews with professionals, entrepreneurs and experts from the public affairs sector. In the interviews they provide their views on lobbying and public affairs trends. The book will soon be presented, but in the meantime we will share several interviews via this website.

For this interview, we spoke with Niels Arntz, co-founder of Temper.

Temper is an online platform for self-employed people looking for jobs to earn extra income in hospitality, retail, logistics and charity. The online platform breaks down barriers in the labour market, but in a Dutch way. Instead of the Sillicon Valley credo move fast and break things, he looks for added value in and with the Dutch consensus decision-making system (Polder model).

Why does Temper provoke societal political discussion?

Temper is a platform for self-employed people who are looking for jobs such as in hospitality, retail, logistics and recently also in healthcare. The first version went live on the first day of 2016. It turned out to be a hit. More and more people want to work this way, where they have the initiative. I used to work in the hospitality industry. If I wanted time off, it was never really possible. With Temper, we turn this around, and place the initiative with the worker. He or she decides whether he or she wants to work. That was the world upside down. The hot issue here is that we work with self-employed people.

In the beginning, you’re pretty much in your own bubble. It’s great to grow, with 10 to 15 per cent more hours worked through the platform every month. The first time I was thrust out of that bubble was during a debate evening. I found myself in a room with 200 labour lawyers, tax consultants and temping agencies, in one of those arena settings. In my naivety, I talked about Temper’s early success and the hundred new users a day. When I told them how good things were at our company, they almost razed me to the ground. At one point, I didn’t know what to say anymore. This was at the end of 2017. Then I realised: there is a lot of dissent. I wasn’t aware of that. That immediately shows the naivety, which was also good for something, because otherwise we might never have started. That moment has been an ass-kicking in my Temper career, which I now look back on with a smile.

What is your experience with politicians and policymakers in setting up a new business?

It is quite diverse. It’s a huge journey to set up a company like this with everything that comes with it. From the start, we want to do things differently from the platforms that have come over from Sillicon Valley. I don’t want to be the party that first sets the country on fire and then maybe helps to put it out. We are a Dutch company, so that makes us quite likeable as a platform. That also has everything to do with the fact that we said from the start: we want to do this the right way and be part of the solution.

We have been proactive towards trade unions and that has resulted in cooperation with them, and we have also gone to the Tax and Customs Administration ourselves, we have entered into dialogue with members of parliament and with the Ministry of Social Affairs and that of Finance.

Our starting point is that if we want to be a sustainable part of the labour market in the Netherlands, we must also want to give something back. Then we must also ensure that the needs of the Netherlands as a whole are met. If that is your starting point, you create value. Because it’s either create value or get value out of it. Many people and companies are – often unconsciously – busy getting value out of something. But if you are busy adding value, the chance of success is much greater. Our stakeholders therefore feel that the intention is good – even if they look at it differently – and that we are looking for a win-win situation. That helps a lot. It also creates a bond of trust, which is important if we are to have any influence. You have to create a bond of trust by being vulnerable. You do that by being transparent and by giving insight. For example, we have given access to our data about 2020. That will help politicians and civil servants.

Your company is coming out of a difficult period. Can you describe it?

We started with three and the road to the ideal team has been quite turbulent. The company changes rapidly, so do the people and the team and the skills required. It was a struggle. In addition, internally we had different views on the definition of success. Will this be the new way of working or supplementary to how things are now? That is quite a difference. In the first years, it did not receive so much attention, but as we progressed, it became more important. Then came the corona crisis and that was mindblowing for us. You are constantly growing for years. We had one hundred and fifty employees. Then came the pandemic, we had some challenges in the team and we had to lay off half of the people, because 95% of the turnover was gone. From one day to the next. We had no wayout. Then we were sued by the union. That explains why we were idle, because we were shaved. We also received a visit from the Inspectorate of Social Affairs. Many external developments meant that we had to mark time. To slow down and ask ourselves the question: how do we create value again?

Many developments from outside meant that we had to sit still for a while and wait for it to blow over. We had to think: what are we going to do, how do we create value again? It was sometimes unreal to experience, but you quickly embrace it. Now that business is doing well again, it is easier to find resignation. You also urged me not to become cynical. That is what often happens in this world.

How does your culture compare to the culture of your stakeholders?

That is an insane difference. Temper is a digital space. At Temper, you can go on holiday whenever you want. I don’t care if you take your kids to school or go to the gym in the middle of the day. Do your thing. Those are my personal values: freedom, flexibility, autonomy. And I see that reflected in the culture of Temper, and also in the culture of people who work through Temper.

Our sloganwas: what can we do today to make a difference tomorrow. That changes over time. When we went up to 100 employees, it was quite difficult to work that way. Because the more you grow, the more processes you create, so things slow down. But MPs also have a fast pace. I wonder how much they can get done with all those compulsory meetings and when you see how much they are living. What is your job, at the end of the day: getting things done or meeting how you get things done?

But anyway, that’s how it works. Another report, another meeting. The question is always: which way will it go, and how will it affect Temper’s business? But most of all: how will it affect all tens of thousands of users who work via platforms? But even if the political processes are slow: you still have influence, and things are still moving in the right direction. That works well for me. I also notice that politicians are very pragmatic and understand that people who work via our platform do so on the side. They are supplementary earners in a very specific phase of their lives and they make a conscious choice.

Politicians are good at expanding the horizon. Policy officers and civil servants are very good at narrowing in. Sometimes that enlarges an issue. Take the concept of platform work, for example. In 2020, that was 6.9% of the total labour market. And then a controversial report comes out from the major banks which states that it will grow to 80% of the total labour market. If you, as a civil servant, take that out and make it representative for the whole sector, you get a distorted picture. As a civil servant, I would write all kinds of alarming proposals to curb this.

It is easier to build a relationship when you don’t need anything from anyone. Just getting acquainted without needing anything. Those are the skills that are very important. You need curiosity. You have to ask the question: how can I contribute to your success? Then people look at me: is he really saying that? But in the end, it works. I know that those people and Temper are the better for it.

‘What can we do today to make a difference tomorrow’

What is your experience of media portrayal and influence on politics?

Platforms are hot and happening. Everyone has an opinion about them. Journalists love to write about them. There is always something special to highlight: a collaboration with the trade union, for example, or a model agreement that has been approved by the tax authorities. There is always an opposing party who writes a flaming argument about why platforms are bad. And then there are questions in parliament. We have been through this three times now. This is a nice dynamic and illustrates that politicians have little time and are whispered to by stakeholders, sometimes through the media. I then find it sometimes a circus, how the answer process proceeds. Ultimately, you keep the circle going. Everyone is busy, so maybe we should be a bit more pragmatic with our time.

It does affect things I want to achieve: the model agreement of the Tax and Customs Administration has been delayed by Parliamentary questions. Maybe that is the objective of those who have whispered those questions, I don’t know. In any case, we proactively inform politicians and civil servants whether there is a possible negative or positive piece in the newspaper. I don’t always get a reaction to that, but then you hear later that they were glad to know about it. That’s how you build up the relationship of trust again.

What can politics learn from a company like Temper?

We provide insight into the new generation of workers. Ministries also need this knowledge. We are happy to offer it. We are very user focused. We only build something if the user really needs it. Politics should also be user-focused. They are representatives of the people. The question is what a round of parliamentary questions contributes. That is the perspective we offer them. It is nice to have politicians meet Temper workers during working visits. Then you really get an insight into what drives someone. Then they can see and hear it with their own eyes and ears. Prioritising and being user-focused are lessons I would like to teach politicians.

‘In Brussels, no one can hear you scream’: The Dutch Parliament trying to keep up with EU affairs

/in , /by

A well-known quote from the Danish political TV series ‘Borgen’ reads: ‘In Brussels, no one can hear you scream’ – referring to the idea that Brussels is primarily a place you send your political opponents off to. In recent weeks, a different meaning emerged in The Hague: no one in Brussels hears Dutch MPs scream.

Last week, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on European Affairs (‘EUZA’) held a debate with Foreign Affairs Minister Hoekstra about the EU intelligence supply. The central question was how the House of Representatives can improve its knowledge and information position on decision-making processes in Brussels. Yesterday, MP Koekoek (Volt) submitted a motion to that effect, requesting the government to explore the possibilities of introducing an EU monitor through which members of parliament could follow legislation and policy developments. Would that suffice to strengthen the influence of the Dutch House of Representatives on European policy?

The diagnosis

Several experts shared their views on the matter in recent weeks.

The need for this discussion was addressed, for example, by a recent report by the International Research and Policy Evaluation (IOB) Directorate: the independent evaluation agency of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. IOB concluded that the European ambitions of the Rutte IV Cabinet are infeasible because the Dutch civil service doesn’t have sufficient EU knowledge and “manpower”.

MEP and former Dutch MP Malik Azmani (VVD – Liberal Conservatives) shared a contribution via LinkedIn. In his blogpost, Azmani places the ball mainly in the court of the House of Representatives, and concludes that the House itself can improve and coordinate its information position and influence over EU processes. For example, he proposes to follow Germany’s example and place more ears and eyes in the European Parliament. According to Azmani, this can be done by increasing the number of official representatives, but also by intensifying contact between MEPs and MPs.

Prior to the debate, Mendeltje van Keulen, lecturer in Europe at the Haagse Hogeschool, spoke to the EUZA committee about her vision on the provision of information, and wrote a column on news website Brusselse Nieuwe. Van Keulen’s recommendation: start the dialogue between new and older/former politicians, civil servants, and other experts. There is room for improvement in retaining institutional memory of how European decision-making works. The lack of insight into how things work in Brussels is not at all entirely new.

The IOB, Azmani, and Van Keulen thus identify several roadblocks that stand in the way of optimal influence by the House, including a knowledge deficit in ministries, an information deficit in the House, and a lack of institutional memory. The result is that Dutch MPs are unable to make their voices heard sufficiently in the development of European policy.

Timing

Where does the House of Representatives itself think the problem lies? Last year, the MP Kamminga (VVD), took analyzed problems encountered by the parliamentary committees in the European dimension of their work. She found that the House is in need of i) better insight into how opportunities for influence can be effectively exploited; and ii) more knowledge about what information is most useful for MPs to be able to effectively carry out their work.

According to MPs Sjoerdsma (D66 – Social Liberals), Amhaouch (CDA – Christian Democrats), and Kamminga herself, the House already has a reasonably clear picture of what is going on, but there is more to be gained from understanding the preliminary stages of decision-making and legislation: what is being prepared at any given time in terms of new or to-be-revised policy? This information would enable MPs to time their influence better.

Minister Hoekstra made a series of pledges to this effect during the debate, including the promise to:

  • inform the House explicitly and proactively in annotated agendas and reports of EU Councils on major and politically sensitive issues;
  • proactively offer technical briefings on legislative files where the subject matter lends itself to this
  • provide feedback on the progress of non-papers in the report of EU Councils;
  • emphasize the importance of the European force field to the Cabinet and in Cabinet letters.

Loud enough?

Time will tell to what extent an extensive EU monitor and Minister Hoekstra’s pledges will have the desired effect. Ultimately, successful EU-influencing by the House relies on commitment and attention to the process. Commitment requires an above-average interest in the EU, investment of time, and work capacity. Elements that are strongly intertwined, and at the same time sparsely distributed in the Lower House. VVD, D66, CDA, Volt, and one-man-group Omtzigt were present at the debate: a chorus of just five voices. Will Brussels hear them scream?

A conversation with Ilse Kaandorp – director of VGM NL

/in /by

As part of the 20th anniversary of Public Matters, we have developed a book which includes interviews with various public affairs experts. In the interviews they provide their views on lobbying and public affairs trends. The book will soon be presented, but in the meantime we will share several interviews via this website.

For this interview, we spoke with Ilse Kaandorp, director of VGM NL, a trade association for property and property owners’ associations (VvE) management in the Netherlands.

Real estate and VvE managers manage buildings on behalf of private and social property owners with a long-term horizon. They operate in an overheated housing market and a hectic decision-making process in The Hague that changes in composition at least every four years. Advocate Ilse Kaandorp therefore focuses on building sustainable relationships for the short and long term.

What place does Public Affairs have within your organisation?

By sharing information and views with politicians, civil servants and market players, we position VGM NL as an expert discussion partner. We have a committed board and a small organisation with less than three full-time employees. We therefore choose carefully the issues that are important to our supporters. For us, Public Affairs is the art of acting as a discussion partner for the government on the basis of knowledge and insight in order to influence political and official decision-making.

How do you build relationships with the government?

The government and the business community need each other to draft future-proof legislation and regulations. Reliable information, insight into different interests, an eye to the future and building personal relationships with politicians and civil servants form the basis for this. VGM NL invests in consultation with the government, because this consultation is the key to forming a basis of support and understanding.

The relationship with both politicians and civil servants will intensify in the coming years. You will increasingly see officials working on legislative proposals that affect property and owner-occupier managers finding their way to VGM NL. In addition, VGM NL is represented in a number of project and working groups in which it brainstorms with policy officials about documents that prepare policy, whether or not commissioned by a minister. This creates a breeding ground on which constructive cooperation can thrive.

The consequences of the fragmented and polarised political landscape are very noticeable here. We now have so many political parties that it can be difficult to oversee everything and keep everyone on the same page. Politicians sometimes seem to want to be more outspoken and less nuanced in order to stand out. If you look at how political decision-making, with a four-year political cycle, comes about and what major problems need to be solved, then that attitude is a challenge. I find it exciting to see, certainly in the longer term, what choices will be made. VGM NL has successfully made an effort to get and stay in touch with the ‘housing’ spokespersons of the political parties. Hopefully this will be the start of constructive cooperation for both the politicians and VGM NL.

This cooperation is dynamic. On the one hand, you have to get to know the politicians and know what is important to your supporters. On the other hand, we invest in relationships with the civil servants who are working on the bills. Because in the end, it’s all in the details. How it appears on paper is ultimately important. The civil servants are more of a continuous factor of the politicians. They do their work, from their own perspective, ultimately in the service of the politicians, of the coalition agreement and the serving ministers and state secretaries.

How does digitisation affect your relationship with politics and other stakeholders?

Where do people get information and the necessary data from? After all, there are more and more sources and each time it is a question of from which perspective this information is made available. Our communication strategy ensures that we are increasingly becoming a knowledge platform that is also available to the government.

Digitalisation is further affecting the way we meet. The pandemic has reinforced that. Because we can now speak to each other on a screen, we can find each other faster and more easily. VGM NL takes part in various working groups from, among others, the Ministries of Justice and Security and the Interior and Kingdom Relations. By using digital meetings, among other things, it is possible to consult more frequently – sometimes on a monthly basis. This would be less feasible if everyone had to drive to The Hague each time for the consultations. Thanks to the online sessions, we now get things done more quickly. Digitalisation is a fantastic tool on the one hand, but on the other hand it also makes contacts a lot more distant. It’s nice to be able to look each other in the eye physically again. I think that eventually a balance will be found between digital and physical meetings, and that cooperation between stakeholders, the government and sector organisations such as VGM NL can be intensified.

What developments in society have the greatest impact on your relationship with the government?

More legislation and regulation, locally and nationally, is often seen as the solution to problems. In our opinion, we achieve more by jointly looking for structural solutions to the causes, each from their own role and responsibility. We see it as our task, as an advocate, to continue to inform politicians from our perspective and to prevent over-regulation.

In addition, there are a number of major issues, such as the energy transition and increasing the sustainability of existing property, that require a joint approach. In addition to informing politicians, we also have a role to play in informing our members and coordinating implementation so that the wheel does not have to be reinvented by everyone.

The fragmented political landscape of today and the polarisation of views have an influence. In order to reach the media, nuance is sometimes hard to find. The tide will have to turn. Even more political groups in parliament will only complicate solving the major problems. Without losing sight of the democratic process, we will, in my opinion, have to work on solutions for future generations and not just on short-term successes.

‘We achieve more by working together to find structural solutions to causes’

Which Public Affairs skills will be important in the coming years?

In my opinion, the key lies in adopting and communicating clear and well-founded positions and investing in maintaining contacts with both politicians and civil servants. At the same time, we ourselves must keep abreast of everything that is happening and will continue to happen in political life in The Hague. In practice, a reaction in a specific file is certainly not always required within 24 or 48 hours. On the other hand, need of course breaks laws, as was shown, for example, by the COVID-19 Justice and Security (Interim Measures) Act, where VGM NL was able to quickly brainstormwith a number of officials about specific necessary measures for property owners’ associations. It is nice to see how the government and VGM NL then work together to achieve a well thought-out and supported final product.

Everything takes time and speed is relative. The real estate that VGM NL members manage has a long-term horizon. The housing market, energy transition, charging stations, owner-occupied homes – these are all long-term processes. By knowing what is going to happen early on in a legislative process and being allowed to think along, influence can be exerted and support created.

A conversation with Maarten Verboom – director of Dedicon

/in /by

As part of the 20th anniversary of Public Matters, we have developed a book which includes interviews with various public affairs experts. In the interviews they provide their views on lobbying and public affairs trends. The book will soon be presented, but in the meantime we will share several interviews via this website.

In this interview we spoke with Maarten Verboom, director of Dedicon, a foundation that creates solutions for people with a reading disability.

“Visual handicap or reading restriction, also the texts and pictures in this interview should be able to be read and ‘viewed’ by everyone”, Maarten believes. A man with a mission, who fights to draw attention to the importance of accessible information and to see it as something normal.

Why is public affairs important for Dedicon?

Dedicon creates solutions for people with a reading disability. We make information accessible that is not already accessible at its source. We must be able to perform our social task well. That means getting the right amount of subsidy and the right tasks from the government.

And speaking more idealistically, ideally all information should already be accessible at the source. This is something that we try to influence much more fundamentally in talks with the government bodies that subsidise us, including the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW). But also with the market parties who should feel responsible for making the information accessible at source. This can be supported by politics and clear legislation.

We are not an interest group like the Eye Association Netherlands (Oogvereniging) and the Unlimited Reading Association (Vereniging Onbeperkt Lezen). We do keep in close contact with them to make sure we support each other. We therefore speak on behalf of people with a reading disability, but not on their behalf. As a foundation, we have knowledge in a certain field. We know what people with reading disabilities need when it comes to accessibility of information. We then have to make sure that in the eyes of the grantor, we are not seen as a party who is peddling for an order or extra subsidy. What matters to us is that people with reading disabilities have unimpeded access to information. That is our mission, that is what we stand for. Public Affairs is one of the tools to get closer to that.

How does the cooperation with other interest groups go?

We are getting better at finding each other. This is easier in some areas than in others. Some organisations have a much broader scope than just the accessibility of information. Sometimes we have to search for the best person to talk to in an organisation. But the Unlimited Reading Association is of course much closer to our mission. So we only need to pick up the phone and we immediately have someone on the line who knows what it is about. In recent years we have been more successful in finding those contacts and in finding the right cooperation. For example, we have already written a few joint letters in the direction of politics or the government. We didn’t do that a few years ago.

Do your actions manage to get the attention of politicians?

It is not always easy to get attention from politicians. Many parties call for attention. And frankly, the interest we stand for is essential for the group of people concerned, but it is a relatively small group. I try to build up and maintain the network within politics.

We see that political attention for issues like ours is relatively low. Because the political force field is becoming quite polarised, we also see that attention is being paid to very specific issues – and that is certainly not our theme. Fortunately, I do see a lot of attention for the issues that we raise in what we now call the middle parties. SP (Socialist Party) and GroenLinks (Green Party) on the one hand, ChristenUnie (Christian Party) on the other, and everything in between, like CDA (Christian Democrats), VVD (Liberal Conservatives) and D66 (Liberal Democrats). We do have to get to know them. But they do pay attention and are interested in this story. They also want to stand up for it and they are open to what we bring up. It’s just that those parties are very much under pressure. Especially with the fragmentation in the House of Representatives, it is of course difficult.

Very small parties pay less attention to it. While I could probably get a hearing at some of these small parties. At the same time it remains difficult, because these are often parties that focus on a few issues. They often say: sorry, we mainly focus on other issues.

Do you also see results of the lobbying?

What I notice is a more general movement, also in Europe, that there is more attention for people with disabilities. It has become more central and self-evident that one works inclusively. That the ultimate solution does not lie in a special facility for people with disabilities. But that people with disabilities can participate in ordinary daily life just like everyone else.

There are many contributors to this. We are also active internationally and in contact with colleagues in Europe and around the world. At the level of the UN and the EU, legislation has been passed which has been implemented in most countries, including the Netherlands. That is essential, that it is anchored in legislation. Sometimes we can find fault with the way in which it is embedded. That is, that it is perhaps not clearly or strongly enough worded or the way in which it is enforced. We can argue about that, of course. But on the other hand, the fact that there is legislation is already very important.

Interest groups are more likely to be involved in such developments than a foundation like Dedicon. While we have a lot of knowledge in that field and also know how to do certain things in the best way. We have work to do there ourselves. To put it in a nasty way, we have to peddle our knowledge and expertise to get it into the heads of politicians. Make use of the organisations that have built up expertise in certain areas with public funds. Fortunately, this is improving. We are now advising OCW on the implementation of the European Accessibility Act where accessible ebooks are concerned.

‘It is sometimes thought too easily that the market will solve the problem’

How does digitisation affect your work and Public Affairs?

Technology, if properly applied, can be used to make more information accessible to people with reading disabilities. There is also a downside to this. If you don’t apply technology and don’t use it properly, the result is that you actually exclude a lot of people. The interest groups and politicians must be alert to this. In the past year, we have had a number of online appointments instead of meeting people in person. Certainly for shorter contacts that works fine. But on the other hand, it is certainly worthwhile and has absolute added value when the contacts take place at a physical location. Especially when a member of parliament comes to Dedicon to see what we do and how we do it. You can tell something online, but when you actually see and experience what we do, what kind of products we make, when you see how our target group uses them, that story speaks for itself much more. Now that many contacts take place online, you increasingly have to make your story concise and catchy enough for your audience. If you have online contact with a member of parliament, you are lucky if you get ten minutes. Your story has to be very clear.

How do you rate the relationship with the civil service?

A foundation such as Dedicon depends for a large part on government subsidy. We receive subsidy from OCW and the Royal Library. Especially when it comes to Public Affairs, we have to operate cautiously. It is a balancing act. We think something of legislation or we want politicians to regulate something better. This means that we sometimes send a message to politicians that is not in line with what the Ministry wants. This is sometimes difficult. We first try to reach an agreement with the ministry officials. Sometimes we then swallow the message. Sometimes we take it up with politicians after all, but then it is important to be open and transparent with the Ministry. Sometimes you also have a common interest with the politicians. If, for example, certain legislation is not clear enough, even for a ministry, we can ask politicians to clarify it, so that everyone knows where they stand. That is certainly appreciated, especially if you are open about it.

What development do you expect for the future in your Public Affairs work?

I see that politicians are returning to market thinking. The idea that the market can and should solve it. The problem is that the market may be able to solve it in theory, but in practice it is more difficult to achieve. The will is there, but the possibilities must also be there. It is sometimes thought too easily that the market will solve it. Politicians are now coming back to this, certainly in the case of larger issues such as healthcare. I hope that this realisation will also be felt in our field. The market cannot always solve problems and is often not the most appropriate tool. As a government, you are responsible for ensuring that people with a reading disability have unimpeded access to information, just like everyone else.

Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) and Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) – the home stretch!

/in , /by

On January 1, France took over the presidency of the European Union from Slovenia. Until June 30 this year, the Élysée Palace takes lead in guiding European policy, and one of France’s priorities is to conclude negotiations on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and Digital Markets Act (“DMA”).

On December 15, 2020, the European Commission presented the DSA and DMA, and there has been considerable progress over the past year. Last Tuesday, trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament, European Commission and the Council of the European Union (‘Council’) on the DMA began. The negotiators would like to conclude these as early as March 29. So far, we see that the Parliament is most ambitious to curb the power of big tech companies, where the Council has stayed closer to the Commission’s original text proposal. The same is true for the DSA.

This blogpost provides a brief insight into what has happened so far, and looks ahead to the final phase of the legislative process

Route The Hague – Paris

More than a year and a half ago (May 2019), we first wrote about the Dutch ambitions in terms of digital platform regulation here. On May 17, 2019, then State Secretary for Economic Affairs, Mona Keijzer, proposed several measures to be able to intervene at the European level in competition issues.

Keijzer found support from the French, among other Member States, resulting in joint positions on the subject: a modest novelty. Historically, Paris and The Hague have difficulties finding each other on important European issues, but Brexit has forced the Netherlands to seek new allies. In addition, both countries are often at the forefront when it comes to regulating the digital platform economy. On behalf of the Netherlands, the new Minister of Economic Affairs Micky Adriaansens (VVD), who took office this week, now seems to be the designated Minister to represent the Dutch DMA and DSA position – although Hans Vijlbrief, State Secretary for Competition, might also be eligible to take on the DMA dossier. A decision on this will reportedly be made next week. In any case, both can make good use of the ‘French-Dutch axis’ that has been created around the theme of tech regulation.

Brussels at Full Steam Ahead

After the publication of the DMA and DSA in December 2020, the Council proceeded quickly, and began tinkering and negotiating the proposals in Council’s Working Group in January 2021. At the EU Competition Council on May 27, the first progress could already be validated by the responsible Ministers. In the months that followed, work was continued by the Council’s preparatory groups, and on 25 November the Competitiveness Council reached an agreement on the Council’s “general approach”. Including the following changes:

DMA

  • A shortening of deadlines for the designation of platforms with a gatekeeper function and tightening of the definition criteria;
  • Adjustment of the structure and scope of the obligations (Art. 5 and 6) in several areas. For example, end users should be able to unsubscribe from core platform services more easily;
  • For the sake of harmonization, it is confirmed that only the Commission may enforce, but Member States may authorize their competition authorities to investigate possible non-compliance and to transmit their findings to the Commission.

DSA

  • Adds additional obligations for online marketplaces and search engines, and stricter rules for very large online platforms;
  • The text allows national authorities to give digital platforms direct orders regarding illegal online content and obliges platforms to keep authorities informed of their actions (“feedback obligation”);
  • In terms of enforcement, it retains the country-of-origin principle but at the same time grants exclusive enforcement powers to the Commission, allowing it to tackle systemic infringements by very large online platforms and search engines.

The European Parliament began their scrutiny a bit later, due to a competence fight between different Parliamentary committees. It finally cut the knot in April: the IMCO (internal market) committee was put in charge of both DMA and DSA. ECON (economic affairs) and ITRE (industry) were designated as “co-responsible,” and were even given “additional opportunities” for a say in the final Parliament position.

German MEP Andreas Schwab (EPP) was put in charge of writing the DMA report from IMCO, and Danish Christel Schaldemose (S&D) that on DSA. Based on their draft reports, other MEPs submitted thousands of amendments, between which compromises were sought from September onwards. On December 15, there could be a plenary vote on the DMA position of the EP. There was more disagreement on the DSA, and it will follow later this month. Key EP positions on the DMA and DSA include:

DMA

  • Quantitative criterion of market capitalization to designate ‘gatekeepers’ is increased from 60 to 80 billion;
  • Additional requirements on use of data for targeted or micro-targeted advertising and interoperability of services;
  • Provides for restrictions on “killer acquisitions”: in cases of systematic non-compliance, the Commission can prohibit digital gatekeepers from making acquisitions that harm emerging competition.

DSA

  • Certain exemptions from DSA obligations for micro and small businesses;
  • Greater protection of minors for direct marketing and targeted advertising for commercial purposes;
  • Online platforms should be prohibited from using deceptive or nudging techniques to influence users’ behavior through “dark patterns”

The Home Stretch?

Last Tuesday, the trilogue negotiations on the DMA began, with the aim of agreeing on a final text. The Parliament, through rapporteur Schwab and his “shadow rapporteurs” will defend its position, and the French Presidency will do the same for the Council. Commissioners Vestager and Breton, and (senior) Commission officials, are acting on behalf of the Commission as an ‘honest broker’ in these negotiations. In recent months a ‘DMA task force’ has been set up for that purpose, consisting of officials from DG COMP and DG CNECT. They have also held numerous discussions with interested companies, NGOs, governments and citizens, and must steer the discussions between Parliament and Council at a technical level.

The negotiators are aiming for an agreement by the end of March, in order to be ready before the French presidential elections. It is doubtful whether this will be possible, given the differences in insight that still need to be bridged between Parliament and Council.

Public Matters advises companies and other organizations that are active in the tech sector, or that are indirectly / directly affected by the impact that the DSA and DMA will have. Check out this page for more information.

A conversation with Morgan Cauvin – international lobbyist at Match Group

/in /by

As part of the 20th anniversary of Public Matters, we have developed a book which includes interviews with various public affairs experts. In the interviews they provide their views on lobbying and public affairs trends. The book will soon be presented, but in the meantime we will share several interviews via this website.

This is the first interview – with Morgan Cauvin – international lobbyist at Match Group, a leading provider of online dating services (including brands like Tinder and Match.com).

For Morgan Cauvin, everything is about relationships. In addition, he thinks that as a lobbyist you should really believe in what you say, be authentic, flexible, show genuine interest and keep updating your network.

What does Public Affairs mean for you and for Match Group?

When I started as a lawyer I advised companies from the outside, but I wanted to be more directly involved in helping companies with their issues. So I became a corporate lawyer, and then I moved on to become a lobbyist. When you work in a company instead of supporting a company, your tasks are more strategic and you focus more on the development of new legislation. As a lobbyist, you get the opportunity to master many areas and respond to them using multiple arguments, such as legal, economic and technological arguments.

Match Group is a medium-sized tech company and Public Affairs is important to us for two reasons. It must ensure that new legislation does not affect our license to operate. The challenge is that legislation for tech companies is often aimed at big tech, for example in the areas of consumer law and online safety, and we can impacted by unintended disadvantages of that legislation. Secondly, we want to build relationships with policymakers and inform them about our interests in order to create a level playing field.

How do you currently rate your relationship with politics?

It has always been a special relationship. Politicians have to make the best possible legislation. To do this, they need to engage to get input from various stakeholders. The lobbyist’s task is to stand up for the interests of a particular organisation or sector. The relationship with the business community is sometimes unbalanced, as not all companies have the resources to use lobbyists. For instance, it is more difficult for medium-sized companies to make their voices heard. Large companies with more budget can therefore have more impact.

This is especially evident in the tech sector, which is only 20 years old and includes many small start-ups. Building relationships with policymakers is complex and a matter of experience. In this respect, the pandemic was a great opportunity; policymakers could reshape their relationship with companies. Online meetings make the lobbying playing field fairer and ensure that more stakeholders have a voice at the table.

Before the pandemic, large companies had more meetings with policymakers, as they have more employees to go to all the meetings. But during the pandemic, there was only one meeting that one delegate from a company could go to, regardless of whether that company was small or large. In addition, the pandemic killed the unofficial lobby, as it all became transparent and on the record. Arguments and considerations were also rethought. If several people address the same issue and substantiate it, it has a greater effect. You saw this clearly during the pandemic.

Is there a difference between lobbying in Europe and at the national level?

Lobbying is more accepted in Brussels than in the Member States. MEPs are more used to talking and dealing with lobbyists. This may have something to do with the fact that MEPs are less visible and can therefore play a more expert role, focusing on the content. That is why they attach more value to discussions with experts, including those who represent a particular interest.

In some countries it is relatively easy to make agreements with policymakers, such as in the Netherlands. This has to do with the experience of these policymakers and the relationship with the private sector. In a centralised state (such as France), it is more difficult to make agreements.

If you want to discuss internal matters in Germany as a foreign company, it is difficult. German policymakers tend to keep the private sector out of the equation and do not want to enter into public relationships with companies. In Germany, it does make a difference if you have the support of a consultancy with employees from the country itself. This contributes to the effectiveness of your public affairs activities.

How does digitalisation affect your relationship with politics and other stakeholders?

Match Group was and is less active on social media when it comes to Public Affairs. In Europe, you can achieve a great deal through direct contact. In Anglo-Saxon countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom this is more difficult. If an issue does not receive any media attention, it becomes more difficult as a lobbyist. In Brussels, the media are much less important, but for MEPs social media are important as a source of information.

Not all companies share their public affairs views on Twitter, as they often feel more comfortable discussing them one-on-one with policymakers. In my opinion, using social media for lobbying in Brussels is not a game changer. But social media can of course play a role in reputation management, especially on national levels.

Digitalisation also involves video calling. Before the COVID pandemic I could only have four meetings a day, now everything has become much more effective. I can suddenly talk to so many people at once in one day. I dare to say that without the pandemic we would have made much less progress on dossiers that were important to us, such as the Digital Markets Act. We could now talk to as many policymakers as the very big tech companies, because we don’t need to travel as much. Before the pandemic, there were many more different meetings with all kinds of policymakers. For us, it was almost impossible to be effectively present everywhere. In addition, there were more organisations that shared our views, which made our story stronger.

‘As a lobbyist, you have to be a generalist and focus on strategy’

Which Public Affairs skills will be important in the coming years?

You have to be able to adapt quickly, also in the way you present your story. You do that differently with MPs than with a top civil servant. I also really believe in the positive effect of lobbying. Policymakers understand better how the private sector works and are therefore better prepared to make concessions. The same goes for the private sector, which better understands politics through your work as lobbyists. This often leads to better outcomes. As a lobbyist you have to be a generalist and focus on strategy, but you also have to focus on the practical issues. In addition, you have to be transparent and believe in who and what you represent. In that sense I find it easy to work for Match Group.

The most important thing: you have to believe in what you are saying. I believe in freedom of choice. If people are informed about the risks, it is up to them to make choices.

My role obviously differs from that of an external lobby consultant. An external consultant needs to identify less with the message of the client he is working for. As an in-house lobbyist, you represent a certain organisation. If an in-house lobbyist doesn’t support the company’s methods or product, lobbying becomes more difficult. As a lobbyist you have to believe in your own message. Actually, many lobbyists in Europe do not like politics, but mainly like to adjust commas in e.g. an amendment, if it is in their interest.

I think what you need most as a lobbyist is the ability to adapt and update your knowledge and network again and again. You also need to be flexible and pragmatic, especially when dealing with different interests and beliefs. You also have to be able to talk to everyone and try to remain neutral. Five years ago, the trend was not to talk to the extreme right or left. Now that has changed: they also have a chance of winning the elections and it is important that they know what we are doing and possibly adjust their positions accordingly.

How do you expect Public Affairs to develop in the coming years?

It seems that Brussels has become much more political – more like a national level. For decades, Brussels was the place where only the weight of for example cheese or trucks was discussed, but now politics is done there, with Germany taking a leading role. I also see that lobbyists in Europe now have much more of a political narrative. People used to not talk about the impact of legislation on a society but now they do. Now good lobbyists talk more about the general interest. Take for example the copyright legislation. In the past, lobbyists in Europe mainly tried to manage the impact of this on their business, but now lobbyists are more interested in the general interest and the broader impact.