The political debate on the Dutch investment climate is “here to stay”

/in , /by

A flood of almost 20 motions in the Dutch House of Representatives last March 19 was the political result of a public discussion about the Dutch investment climate and earning capacity. A public discussion that was further ignited recently – after the earlier departure from the Netherlands of a number of multinationals – by ASML and Boskalis among others. The motions were somewhat general and symbolic here and there and ready to be concretized. Additionally, an adopted motion had a counterproductive effect; well-intentioned political intentions led to the freezing of the Dutch National Growth Fund.

During debates on the business climate, members of the House of Representatives are still hesitant to adopt concrete positions regarding the concerns that exist among companies. For example, regarding the hastily decided reduction of the fiscal expat scheme, the increase in taxes on the repurchase of own shares, or the possible restriction of the innovation box. In this respect, it is a missed political opportunity. However, more debates in the House of Representatives are expected and the “investment climate” is mentioned in the 10 themes to serve as the basis for a new cabinet’s outline agreement. The question remains in all of this: will it stick, when, and in what form? It is essential to work together in the short term on consistent policy-making aimed at the sustainable growth of Dutch business activity.

Over the past decade, concerns within both national and multinational companies established in the Netherlands have grown, and alienation from politics has increased. This often involved genuine concerns stemming from societal engagement and sometimes some opportunism from well-understood self-interest. Additionally, foreign investments in Europe and particularly in the Netherlands – also from American companies – are noticeably declining.

In some cases, the alienation is the fault of the business community itself. Out-of-line remuneration choices, less fortunate photos at top meetings with politicians, refusals to participate in political debates, or avoiding questions about politics and policy. Authoritative CEO activism in the Netherlands is granted to very few, or a style is chosen that shocks those in The Hague. Politicians also contribute to the issue: creating apparent contradictions between, for example, Dutch students and expats, inconsistency of positions by saying one thing and voting another, and publicly roasting companies and entrepreneurs. Even the reputation of family businesses is questioned by some due to advocacy concerning the business succession regulation.

Whatever underlying feelings or data predominate, a majority of entrepreneurial Netherlands has wanted to work on the relationship with “The Hague” from a constructive and positive attitude for a long time. While the opposite actually happened: the relationship has become colder and more distant. Both in personal relationships and business contacts. A worrying observation. Because even if you have substantive differences or a different political conviction, there is a mutual interest in keeping contacts warm, keeping the dialogue going, and making policy predictable in the long term.

This has led to a mutual decrease in trust. Whereby the many incidents have been fueled by a longer-observed undercurrent: policy fickleness. Such fickleness makes a company and entrepreneur restless. Internationally operating companies consider investments in the Netherlands ranging from millions to billions of euros. Investments that must be recouped over decades. The common thread of all the questions asked to me is “how predictable and consistent is the policy context in which we operate?”. If this question is answered negatively, investments are postponed, limited, canceled, or made in another country.

The mentioned motions in the House of Representatives seem to be the starting point of a political discussion about the Dutch business and investment climate. This discussion is progressively evolving into a balanced public debate, as evidenced by various Dutch television broadcasts and publications in newspapers. Soon, the House of Representatives will take its turn again with a round table discussion for which companies are invited, and a debate on support for the Eindhoven region. As a result – as the companies hope – a clear positioning of the Netherlands within the European Union and beyond. Because if you want to anchor such policy in the long term, it is precisely this fundamental discussion that is crucial. This discussion about the earning capacity of the Netherlands calls for vision. A vision that politics, ministries, relevant parties from the polder, and companies can develop jointly.

Time for a preliminary conclusion: the debate on the investment climate and earning capacity of the Netherlands is ‘here to stay’. And now let’s hope that MPs crowding in front of the interruption microphone in the House of Representatives will lead to more and sustainable business activity in the Netherlands.

Navigating Geert Wilders’ quest for Power in the Netherlands

/in , /by

The outcome of the recent Dutch election on November 22nd was nothing short of surprising, as it catapulted the right-wing populist PVV (Party for Freedom), led by Geert Wilders, to the forefront of the political spectrum. While the prospect of forming a government with the PVV and three other, less extreme parties might seem straightforward, the reality is far more intricate. Ronald Plasterk, a former Labour minister who has undergone a political shift towards the right, was appointed as the “verkenner” by the PVV after their initial candidate withdrew due to a corruption scandal. What initially seemed like a simple task has turned into a complex puzzle.

Geert Wilders’ ideal coalition partner is the VVD (Liberal Conservartives), despite his extensive criticism of them during their 13-year rule. Dilan Yesilgoz, the new leader of the VVD, has made it clear that her party won’t partake in the cabinet; they intend to take a step back, especially after losing ten seats. Nonetheless, Yesilgoz remains open to the idea of supporting a right-wing government through a confidence-and-supply agreement. Meanwhile, the BBB (populist Farmer–Citizen Movement) shows more enthusiasm for a potential collaboration.

Yet, a significant roadblock looms. The NSC (New Social Contract), a recently established political entity led by Pieter Omtzigt, a former Christian Democrat known for his unwavering commitment to the rule of law, has categorically ruled out forming a coalition with the PVV. Omtzigt argues that the PVV’s proposals, including the banning of mosques, infringe upon the constitution. While Wilders has promised to set aside these proposals, Omtzigt demands nothing short of their complete removal from the PVV’s agenda, along with firm commitments to EU membership, treaty adherence, support for Ukraine, and concrete actions on climate change.

Even if Wilders manages to meet Omtzigt’s stringent criteria, the challenge of forming a minority government without the VVD remains. Such a government would require ministers from the relatively untested PVV, NSC, and BBB, which might struggle to identify qualified candidates, as underscored by a recent corruption scandal. In the Netherlands, parliamentarians must relinquish their parliamentary roles to assume ministerial positions, a hurdle the PVV can ill afford, given its limited pool of experienced prospects. Additionally, a government without the VVD would lack a majority in the Senate, opening the door for potential legislative hurdles.

Despite Geert Wilders and the PVV’s electoral victory, leftist protests have been relatively subdued, primarily due to the uncertainty surrounding coalition negotiations. Some on the left find merit in the PVV’s economic agenda, which vaguely promises increased housing and more affordable healthcare. Nevertheless, some believe it’s crucial not to underestimate the potential risks posed by populists who challenge the rule of law, as exemplified in countries like Hungary and Poland.

Dilan Yesilgoz’s firm stance on refraining from government participation could also be a maneuver during negotiations. She may be hoping that Wilders will fervently seek her party’s involvement. Another plausible scenario could see another party nominating the prime minister while all four coalition partners pursue a more robust stance on immigration. Geert Wilders’ aspiration to lead the Netherlands towards its most right-wing government ever remains a possibility but is definitely not a done deal, given the significant adjustments required to his party’s agenda.

‘He came with a burning torch’: Threats force 1 in 4 Dutch politicians to seek protection.

/in /by

Our colleague Bas Batelaan has contributed to this alarming article on Euronews.

The disturbing rise in threats against Dutch politicians is a wake-up call for us all. It’s key to every democracy that politicians freely voice their views without fear ?

Useless consultations without dialogue

/in , /by

What advocacy group has not contributed to a policy consultation? Only to find that nothing seems to have been done with the input.

This need not be a problem. It is a formal procedure in which stakeholders show what they think about a decision or law.

In recent years we have seen an increase in consultation sessions or stakeholder dialogues from central government. I am a strong proponent of stakeholder dialogues. The dialogues should better involve stakeholders in policy or new legislation. In recent months I have had the opportunity to attend several such dialogues from different ministries. What is striking is that many of these sessions are so one-sided in nature that many participants came out of them more cynical and disillusioned than they went in. While actually putting in time and energy from the government. Where does it go wrong?

How does it work?

A ministry organizes a meeting about a new policy such as a carbon cap, renewable energy or new policies in the telecom sector, for example. The sessions follow a similar pattern: there is a presentation of the proposed regulations and then those present in the room can comment on them. What is striking about the latter part is that it is often extremely tightly directed and hardly any responses are given to stakeholder comments. To those invited, therefore, it looks like a live version of the written consultation process that many advocates are familiar with. It is a kind of black box where you give input and have no idea in what way it will be used. And which sometimes generates more questions than answers.

The stakeholder dialogues on new policies often ended remarkably quickly, and when I spoke to the various participants afterward they all said the same thing. Namely that they felt obliged to attend but had no expectation that anything would be done with their input.

Thus the stakeholder dialogue degenerates into a compulsory exercise in which everyone plays an uncomfortable role without actually improving anything. Some then experience this as a similar “ritual dance” to consultations.

Although it is to be appreciated that ministries give all stakeholders the opportunity to react to new policy proposals, it should not degenerate into sham involvement. This is a missed opportunity, as it does not contribute to better policy and threatens support for policy.

I am well aware of the downside, or rather the risk, of dialogue. Parties in the room can use it in possible legal proceedings later in the process. But if that is a serious risk, then it should be explored whether it can be legally overcome.

Better policies are made by regularly questioning your own assumptions and learning from the perspectives of other stakeholders. In a constantly changing world, stakeholder dialogue allows policymakers in ministries to test their policies before they are implemented. The value of good stakeholder dialogue is also that it results in higher levels of mutual understanding or better insights.

Businesses should not be afraid to campaign openly for their interests

/in , /by

While many people did not seem to be mournful about the fall of the Cabinet, there is little joy among the Dutch business community. Many executives expect sentiment about businesses to get worse rather than better in Dutch politics.

The Dutch government has always been known as stable and business-friendly. But, when company executives are invited to the House of Representatives, it is often to publicly put them on the spot. It leads to a lot of cynicism among those same executives, and more and more often they decline such invitations.

Corporate interests have been treated shrugged off in recent years. See the departure of Shell, DSM-Firmenich, Flow Traders, Aegon and the discussion about the downsizing of Schiphol Airport. If many Dutch people don’t care, why should the House of Representatives?

Who should be concerned is the Social and Economic Council (SER)

In a recent column, SER president Putters did not say a word about the deteriorating sentiment about big business and how important it is to improve the dialogue between business and politics. Because if both treat each other cynically or shrugging their shoulders, then the SER also loses its function and we can ditch the “polder model.”

Many companies expect to represent their interests through industry associations and at polder institutions such as the SER. It was often seen as lobbying behind the scenes. But those processes are becoming increasingly transparent. Not for nothing did Prime Minister Rutte call on executives to sit in on talk shows and tell their side of the story. But few have since heeded this call.

Directors of large companies must take a more assertive stance in the public debate if they are to represent their interests effectively. So that means campaigning visibly and showing towards the general public what you stand for. In the U.S. it has long been customary for companies to make appeals to politicians through advertisements and commercials. In the Netherlands, companies are reluctant to do this. This is unjustified, because the difference between public opinion and the formation of opinion in the House of Representatives is becoming smaller and smaller due to, among other things, the urge to profile oneself and the limited time of many MPs. Trade unions and environmental organizations have also understood this. Increasingly, they are campaigning through public opinion. Take the example of Friends of the Earth’s television spots and social media campaign against Tata Steel.

The back room is becoming increasingly transparent, and with it, the debate is also moving into the public arena.

Many executives base their restraint on media sentiment and often critical coverage. But that picture is not complete, because businesses have greater trust among the public than would appear based on headlines. Annual research by Edelman shows that compared to government and NGOs, “business” enjoys high levels of trust among the public. So there is an opportunity for businesses to speak out much more on social issues. So, businesses show what you stand for and campaign for your interests.

The Circular Future of the Netherlands

/in , /by

According to many 2022 was supposed to be the year of the Circular Economy. According to the planning of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the National Program on Circular Economy (NPCE) was scheduled to be presented, and the European Commission was supposed to publish their new circular policy in December (revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive as part of the Circular Economy Package).

Only the European plans came through in 2022, but accompanied by some criticism. For instance, packaging industry interest groups strongly opposed the hard-to-achieve reuse targets, while NGOs accused the Commission of giving in to these demands by toning down its proposal. Although it took some time, The Dutch Program was finally revealed last week. So, will 2023 be the year of the Circular Economy after all?

The NPCE in short

The National Program for the Circular Economy aims to reduce primary use of raw materials by companies and the government with 50% by 2030. An ambitious goal, knowing that the share of circular companies in the Dutch economy is now close to 7%. This includes the well-known bicycle or shoemaker, but also a textile manufacturer that uses recycled textiles. Working towards that 50% means incentivizing a wider range of companies. Hence, the NPCE is laying out several roadmaps for product chains: consumer goods, plastics, construction and manufacturing. Plans for each of these chains were already presented in July 2022; they are now included in the Program.

The weeks leading up to the original release date were messy. In the spring of 2022, the House of Representatives called on the state secretary Heijnen to publish the Program before the Circular Economy Committee debate on November 2, 2022. Until 2 weeks before the debate, it was unclear whether the plan would be presented. Eventually, the publication was postponed, under pressure from interest groups and MPs. In fact, the preparatory sessions of the draft program showed that the plan appeared to be unambitious, lacking concrete goals, lines of action, and responsibilities. So, the Ministry had to return to the drawing board to incorporate the feedback.

Two weeks before publication, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) presented their biannual report on the development of a circular economy in the Netherlands, expressing their concerns about the stagnant progress. In addition to the fact that use of most raw materials has not decreased, it also showed an increase in consumption of products, rather than a decrease. PBL is critical on the current government policy and sees a mismatch with the stated goals. As in the previous report, they call for more ‘urge and coercion’. The NPCE includes more prescriptive, normative and incentive measures. However, much of this has yet to be specified.

Two criticisms

Causes that hinder concrete measures are the lack of financial coverage and the plan’s interdepartmental spread. For example, the Budget Memorandum does not include structural funding for circular economy. Also, the program has not been calculated by PBL, which makes the feasibility of the plans uncertain.

As a consequence of the low financial coverage, the NPCE proposes few concrete plans. It talks mostly about ‘exploring’ and additionally about ‘researching’ measures, but there is little mention of ‘implementing’. Exploration and research are relatively safe political words because they have less financial incentives attached to them. The secretary of state gives herself cover by doing so: it names a potential action, without taking responsibility for it.

Furthermore, the piece talks about adding prescriptive, punitive and incentive measures. Whereas the former category requires more financial commitment from the government, the latter category contains it to a lesser extent. It is striking that the secretary of state still opts for primarily stimulating measures, and the normative measures mainly apply to European directives. As a result, the Netherlands to a lesser extent takes the pioneering role it so aspires to.

How to proceed?

The upcoming months will be mainly devoted to giving substance to the action lines. The concretization of the objectives, as well as the addition of more normative and restrictive measures is for now a political matter. By means of motions and commitments, members of Parliament can call on the state secretary to set tougher targets. These months are therefore the perfect opportunity for companies and organizations to have their say as well as sharing experiences about a circular future of the Netherlands.

A lobby register a first step in strengthening trust

/in /by

For many years there has been a frenetic debate in the Netherlands about lobbying legislation. In particular, the introduction of a lobby register is receiving a lot of attention in that discussion. Such as in the FD article of 20 January, “Lobby register? The Netherlands is not in a hurry for it yet”. In this article, the scientist says “wait and see”, the lobbyist calls it “embarrassing” that there is still no register, and a lobbying politician talks about “100% symbol politics”.

It strikes me that the article does point very strongly at the minister of the Interior and at lobbyists. Whereas the role and responsibility of the House of Representatives remains unaddressed. Meanwhile, the House has so far imposed few lobbying rules on itself other than abolishing continuous access passes for former MPs. For instance, the House of Representatives lacks a public visitors’ register, rules on revolving doors, or insight into individual agendas regarding who or what is being discussed with. And the motive for applying for a lobby pass provided in the FD-article stems more from practical considerations: just as at Schiphol Airport a Privium pass allows you to walk through faster, a lobby pass facilitates access to a number of places in the House of Representatives building. While a MP does not consider the pass a prerequisite for contact, for instance.

Suppose such rules did apply in the House of Representatives I still wonder: and then what? Isn’t the honest story that complete transparency is impossible? Because even if we were to webcast conversations between MPs and ‘externals’, so to speak, it would not be sufficiently transparent for those who do not trust politicians or the decision-making system anyway. All those rules then become just an end in themselves without enhancing the quality and legitimacy of decision-making. For me, this discussion on lobbying legislation is consequently reducible to a discussion on trust. If you look at the Statistics Netherlands trust figures, you see a declining trust of citizens in the House of Representatives, politicians and civil servants. The latest figures date from March 2022 and the trend is likely to have continued. Lobbying rules are only a very small part of reversing this trend. The problem is deeper and more fundamental.

When you take a position on a lobby register as a lobbyist, you should not forget to mention that you yourself are in favour of it. Herewith: also as a lobbying consultant, active for almost 30 years in The Hague, Brussels and Washington, I too think a register is an excellent idea. So now introduce that register as soon as possible. Every little bit helps. The House of Representatives can simply take the membership list of the Dutch Professional Association for Public Affairs, the BVPA, as a starting point for this, as this will already cover a majority of the PA professional group. But don’t try to settle everything down to the last detail. In the FD article of 20 January, the scientist argues that we should first look at what “is effective” before introducing a register. Now, above all, let’s not do that and just get started. And have a critical annual exchange of views and discuss what works and what does not. And subsequently experience, work-wise, what ‘The Hague’ and trust in the system and the professionals operating in it brings.

In doing so, also say honestly and transparently: not everything can be laid down in rules. Give each other a little more trust. Also have confidence in the institutions in which many checks and balances are already in place. If you do not abide by the rules or mores, you will be called to account. First of all in ‘The Hague’. And then publicly in (social) media. Against these existing checks & balances, no lobby register can compete.

Engage the business community for a truly successful Mental Prevention Agreement

/in , /by

More and more people are struggling with mental stress or illness. The COVID crisis has only intensified this. The numbers don’t lie: 1.8 million Dutch people face depression, anxiety disorders and problems with alcohol and drugs every year. Some 840,000 young people experience mental challenges and/or complaints and 1.3 million workers experienced burnout or burnout symptoms in 2019. State secretary Van Ooijen (Prevention) shared these alarming figures last summer in his parliamentary letter on the approach ‘Mental health: a collective good’. The letter also revealed that adults with mental problems are more likely to have physical complaints, are less able to take care of their children and have fewer (good) social contacts. Among other things, loneliness leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s and death. Previous research also shows that with stable mental health, life expectancy is 15 to 20 years longer than people with poor mental health.

The Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports is now working with civil society partners to develop the National Mental Prevention Agreement. Our call: draw lessons from the previously concluded National Prevention Agreement to combat substance abuse and directly involve the business community as well as several civil society organizations in its implementation. After all, committed people who care about mental health work here too. Indeed, these organizations are crucial to making the National Mental Prevention Agreement a success. By identifying worrisome behavior in time and sharing observations with healthcare institutions, a lot of problems can be prevented.

How it all started

In early 2021, the House of Representatives passed a motion by MPs Carla Dik-Faber (Christen Unie / Christian Union) and Antje Diertens (D66 / Liberal Democrats) requesting the cabinet to explore the possibilities of a National Mental Health Prevention Agreement. This is how it all started. The motion was prompted by the observation that 840,000 young adults in the Netherlands have a mental illness. At the time, then state secretary Blokhuis (Prevention) was already working on the National Prevention Agreement to reduce smoking, obesity and problematic alcohol use.

In the summer of 2021, young people with mental vulnerability sounded the alarm in The Hague. A long list of organisations that are involved in mental health

Team Geestkracht, together with MIND, Young in Prison, Stichting SAMAH, Labyrint-In Perspectief, Stichting Zwerfjongeren Nederland, Nationale Jeugdraad, Stichting ExpEx, @ease and JongPIT) presented a petition to the House of Representatives. In doing so, the young people called on MPs and the future cabinet (caretaker government) to start working on a National Prevention Agreement on Mental Health.

In a response to the petition, state secretary Blokhuis stated that he endorsed the importance of mental health and will present an exploration in the fall.

Various parties, such as healthcare, education, patient and scientific organizations, entered discussions and two meetings were organized to explore with these organizations the possibilities and preconditions of a National Mental Health Prevention Agreement. The House of Representatives was informed of that exploration in mid-October 2021.

Saving healthcare costs

Investing in prevention of mental health problems would save a lot of healthcare costs. The coalition agreement, concluded by the Fourth Rutte cabinet led by prime minister Mark Rutte at the end of 2021, therefore included the ambition to broaden the existing National Prevention Agreement to include mental health. The ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport commissioned the an independent research centre in the field of mental health and addiction (Trimbos-institute), the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and the the Association of GGD’s (Regional Public Health Services) and GHOR-(Regional Medical Emergency Preparedness and Planning) (GGD GHOR) to investigate the savings in healthcare costs. That study, published in late April, showed that the savings in healthcare costs could be substantial. If the mental health of 1 million adult Dutch people improves by five per cent, it could save 144 million euros.

Broad-based agreement

On June 10th, state secretary Van Ooijen (Prevention), minister Helder (Long-term healthcare and Sports), minister Dijkgraaf (Education, Culture and Science), minister Wiersma (Primary and Secondary Education), state secretary Uslu (Culture and Media), minister Van Gennip (Social Affairs and Employment) and minister Schouten (Poverty Policy, Participation and Pensions) sent their approach ‘Mental health: a collective good’ to the House of Representatives. The aim of the cabinet is to make mental health negotiable and provide tools to promote people’s mental health and prevent or timely identify complaints.

According to the ministers, the approach is not yet completely set in stone. There is room for new ideas and initiatives emerging from civil society and the target groups. In their approach, the concluded that they will remain in close consultation and cooperation with the target groups and other parties involved in the coming period to see what is additionally needed. That it will be a widely supported agreement is shown not only by the cooperation of the various ministries. Indeed, there is cooperation with various parties, from municipalities to experts and from various knowledge institutes to employer and employee organizations. The House of Representatives will soon receive a letter about the progress, and will be informed annually thereafter.

A successful Mental Prevention Agreement

Paying enough attention to mental health helps reduce risks of both physical and mental health problems. A widely supported agreement is crucial for a successful Mental Prevention Agreement. Sufficient involvement of various health, youth, and civil society organizations, as well as various companies, is therefore essential to get mental health higher on the political agenda. In a parliamentary letter from October 2022, the minister indicates that discussions have been held with various healthcare, education, patient and scientific organizations, but the business community is missing. This while businesses (think of employers, broadcasters, gambling operators, etc.) can play a role in moving from treating symptoms to addressing underlying causes.

In any case, for many of the actions, it takes time before they show a possible effect. So let us draw lessons from the earlier National Prevention Agreement: the 2020 targets in which legislation was announced have all been met. In contrast, targets that had to be achieved in larger partnerships, or where many components depend on each other, were more often not (yet) achieved. After all, it takes time to set up such partnerships and make them work, while mental health collaboration can raise awareness and impact.

How can effective stakeholder management contribute to achieving a successful Mental Prevention Agreement? For organizations with an interest in this agreement, three rules applied in recent months:

  1. Being there early is useful. Many civil society organizations were involved in drafting the Mental Prevention Agreement from the moment it was mooted in the House of Representatives. This ensures an emphatic stamp on the final agreement.
  2. Informing the House of Representatives with experts by experience is effective. In this case, the House of Representatives was the driver of a Mental Prevention Agreement. By talking to MPs about the experiences of young people, among others, organizations ensured that the interests of young people were placed higher on the political agenda. Organizations such as MIND, Young in Prison, Stichting SAMAH, Labyrint-In Perspectief, Stichting Zwerfjongeren Nederland, National Youth Council, Stichting ExpEx, @ease and JongPIT thus influenced the political debates.
  3. Moreover: working together in a broader coalition pays off. There are countless organizations that want to influence policy, and neither MPs nor officials have time to engage with all kinds of individual organizations. The fact that a coalition engages in the conversation increases the chances of ideas being adopted.

For practically every company, the Mental Prevention Agreement is important. Consider, for instance, ensuring a safe working environment. Make sure you are involved in its implementation. Speak out if you have ideas or suggestions to improve the agreement. Now is the time!

PM Academy programme

/in , /by

At Public Matters, we consider growth and development of our employees important, which is why we invest in personal coaching, development and internal knowledge sharing. We do this with PM Academy, a learning and development programme for employees. At the PM Academy, we offer training courses – given by colleagues and external experts. In addition, the personal coaching of colleagues focuses on other areas in which they want to develop.

 

What is it?

Consultants at Public Matters work on large societal challenges. PM Academy sees to it that internal knowledge sharing is consciously facilitated, especially in a team in which more digital collaboration takes place after the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, Public Matters wants to make skills and knowledge from different sectors available to colleagues from outside the office. We do this by inviting colleagues and inspiring speakers to talk about their work or passion. This could, for example, be a journalist or (former) MP who talks about contact with politicians and lobbyists.

Working at Public Matters is the way for young PA talent to further develop through learning on the job. In a team of driven, creative and result-oriented consultants, we work in the heart of political The Hague and Brussels. But we also believe it is important to accelerate the development of knowledge and skills alongside your daily work. Young talents at Public Matters get the chance to develop in many different ways.

PM Academy is thus a way of increasing team knowledge & development in a structured way. Learning together = enjoying work together.

 

How does it work?

Twice a month we organise a session. The programme tries to take into account the different functions and experiences of colleagues as much as possible. For instance, a fixed selection of different training courses is part of the onboarding process. In addition, the programme focuses on developing i) skills (e.g. PowerPoint), ii) sector content knowledge (e.g. energy or healthcare), and iii) professional Public Affairs knowledge.

Night of the Lobbyist: time for a new lobbying culture?

/in , /by

The second Night of the Lobbyist took place on 10 November 2022: the evening where lobbyists, academics, students and policymakers exchanged views on the lobbying profession. The evening was opened by Joris Luyendijk, where he reflected on lobby culture from his book ‘The Man with the Seven Ticks’ (De Zeven Vinkjes). After the opening, two series of partial sessions took place, in which colleague Valérie Mendes de León also spoke.

 

In the sub-session ‘Time for a new lobbying culture’, Valérie spoke with Professor of Public Affairs Caelestra Braun (Leiden University), NJR president Kimberley Snijders and Joram Schollaardt, Public Affairs at the Netherlands Society for the Protection of Birds. The session opened with the question ‘What makes you a new lobbyist?’ After considering what old and new lobby would mean, the panel came to the answer that a combination of multiple perspectives characterises the new generation of lobbyists. For colleague Valérie, this means bringing her experiences as a public affairs working group member at the Young Climate Movement (Jonge Klimaatbeweging) into her work at Public Matters – and vice versa. The multiplicity of perspectives and voices provided refreshing insights.

 

The panel then engaged the audience in a discussion about what this new lobbying culture means then: is there really a new lobbying culture? Haven’t resources just changed? Or do changes in the political landscape mean that lobbyists are now needed more than usual? These questions and more passed in review. In the end, Caelesta proposed the seven ticks of the new lobbying culture: more transparency, collaboration, pro bono lobbying, citizen lobbying, intolerance of lobbying against the public welfare, long-term vision and guts.

 

With many new ideas and conversation material, the group left the room, on to the next Night of the Lobbyist.