25/06/2025
On 24 June 2025, Transparency International EU published a revealing analysis of lobbying interactions by the European Parliament in its first year. Since the last amendment to the rules of procedure, all MEPs and their assistants must declare lobbying meetings, including with lobbying organisations and representatives of third countries – a significant extension of the previous rule, which previously only applied to MEPs in specific leadership roles such as rapporteur, shadow rapporteur and committee chair.
The results are striking: more than 30,000 meetings have been disclosed since the new Parliament took office, an astonishing 314% increase on the same period in the previous legislature. On paper, this looks like a remarkable victory for transparency and accountability. But a closer look at the data reveals some troubling trends and persistent shortcomings.
A boom in transparency with imbalances
The increase in the number of declarations shows that the Parliament’s new rules are having an effect. Many MEPs are now documenting their commitments, giving the public a better idea of who is trying to influence EU policymaking. However, despite this progress, not all MEPs comply in the same way.
The analysis revealed that 88 MEPs, or more than 10% of the total, did not declare a single meeting in the past year. Among the non-aligned and the far-right group ESN (Europe of Sovereign Nations), compliance is particularly low, with around 40% of members not declaring any meetings. On the other hand, the Greens/EFA group stands out for its total compliance, with each of its MEPs publishing at least some data.
These disparities suggest that the application of transparency rules is weak. If MEPs can ignore the obligation to disclose meetings without suffering the consequences, the integrity of the whole system is compromised.
Who has access to MEPs?
One of the most revealing aspects of the data is the distribution of the people who meet MEPs. Of the 20 most active organisations identified in MEPs’ meetings, 14 are commercial entities. These include large companies such as Google, Microsoft, Bayer and Airbus. Only a small number of civil society organisations, such as the European Environmental Bureau and Oxfam, feature in the top 20 list.
Even more troubling is the inclusion of players whose lobbying raises obvious ethical questions. Philip Morris International, the tobacco giant, is among the most frequently cited organisations. This is despite the World Health Organisation’s guidelines, which advise limiting relations with the tobacco industry because of its well-documented influence tactics.
In addition, the data shows regular contacts between some far-right and non-aligned MEPs and representatives of authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia and Belarus. Some MEPs have also hosted delegations from ideologically aligned and non-transparent foreign political groups, including US conservative think tanks that are not listed in the EU’s official transparency register. These meetings raise serious questions about foreign influence and the Parliament’s ability to control it.
Fossil Fuels and Climate Concerns
One of the most alarming findings concerns the fossil fuel industry. The seven largest fossil fuel companies – Shell, Eni, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, BP, Equinor and Chevron – organised more than 1,000 meetings with MEPs and their staff in the space of just one year. Half of these meetings were related to discussions on climate policy. This disproportionate presence of fossil fuel interests raises serious concerns about the balance of contributions to environmental legislation. At a time when the European Union is committed to ambitious climate targets, the scale of the fossil fuel industries’ access to legislators risks diluting the strength and speed of climate action.
Data Gaps Undermine Analytical Usefulness
While the quantity of data has improved considerably, the quality remains uneven. Many descriptions of meetings are vague – terms such as ‘exchange of views’ or ‘informal discussion’ are frequently used without further explanation. This limits the public’s understanding of what was discussed and why.
Moreover, MEPs often fail to correctly link the meetings they have declared to entries in the EU transparency register. These technical weaknesses make the data less useful for citizens, journalists and watchdogs seeking to understand the EU’s influence.
A Turning Point for Lobby Transparency
The extension of the disclosure of lobbying meetings marks an important step in the EU’s transparency programme. However, it also reveals the limits of transparency when dissociated from enforcement, standardisation and structural reform. As lobbyists and public interest actors seek to influence policy in a fair and ethical manner, it is essential to ensure that transparency systems are robust, accessible and enforceable.
In the coming months, the European institutions will come under increasing pressure to deepen these reforms. The question is no longer whether transparency is important, but whether it can translate into real accountability and a more balanced political environment.
Discover the recommendations from Transparency International EU here.