We often consider business groups to be the dominant lobbying force in Brussels. But, based on his latest research, Frederik Stevens shows the opposite: citizen groups are more likely to influence what gets on, or stays off, the EU’s agenda. And when they attract media attention, their influence clearly outweighs that of business interests
European politics often portrays business groups as all-powerful lobbies. With their deep pockets, expert staff, and access to policy-makers, we assume they dominate agenda-setting – influencing which policy issues reach the EU’s political table and which never see the light of day.
Without agenda status, the EU will not debate or negotiate a policy issue, so it's important to understand who really influences the agenda
Yet scholars have rarely tested this assumption. While they have studied the influence of interest groups on policy outcomes, we know far less about who shapes the list of agenda items in the first place. This matters because without agenda status, a policy issue is dead on arrival: it is never debated, never negotiated, and the status quo prevails.
Drawing on 37 interviews with European Commission officials, 148 interviews with interest representatives, and 818 media articles across 56 EU policy issues, I examined whether business interests really dominate. I measured agenda-setting influence in two ways: by checking whether interest groups’ preferences matched actual agenda outcomes (preference attainment) and by asking organisations whether they saw themselves as influential (self-attributed influence).
Citizen groups are influential agenda-setters, because they provide valuable information on public preferences. Business groups tend to offer only technical expertise
The results are clear: citizen groups are more influential agenda-setters than business groups. Their strength lies in credibly providing valuable information on public preferences. Business groups, by contrast, tend to offer technical expertise. Useful later in the legislative process, such expertise matters less when the question is: what should the EU act on in the first place? This aligns with recent research showing that the European Commission is no longer a technocratic body shielded from public pressure. Instead, it now uses its agenda-setting powers to respond to citizens’ concerns. My findings help explain how the Commission learns about those concerns: citizen groups translate public opinion into political demands.
But there’s a twist. Citizen groups only gain an advantage when they attract media attention. Visibility in outlets such as Politico Europe, Euractiv or EUobserver amplifies their voice, making it harder for policy-makers to ignore their demands. Business groups, however, fare worse in the spotlight. They often prefer the world of 'quiet politics', where they can discuss technical detail behind closed doors. When their lobbying enters the public arena, their influence declines.
When citizen groups attract media attention, it becomes harder for policy-makers to ignore them. Business groups, by contrast, fare worse in the media spotlight
These findings challenge the common view that Brussels bends primarily to corporate power. Policy-makers are responsive to broader societal demands, but only when citizen groups manage to cut through the noise of EU politics. This places the media in a powerful gatekeeping role. A vibrant, pluralist media landscape ensures citizen voices can shape EU priorities. But when media access depends on resources, there is a risk of silencing some causes while amplifying others.
The study also highlights a neglected dimension of politics: non-decision-making. Business and citizen groups not only push their 'dream' issues onto the agenda, but also fight to keep 'nightmare' issues off it. For instance, dream issues for business groups might include regulatory relief, tax incentives, or support for innovation, whereas nightmare issues could involve stricter environmental regulations, labor restrictions, or measures that increase operational costs. For citizen groups, dream issues might involve stronger protections for human rights, environmental sustainability, or consumer rights, while nightmare issues could include the rollback of social or environmental protections. These examples illustrate that what remains unspoken or blocked from debate can matter as much as the issues that actively enter the policy arena.
Citizen groups can and do influence the EU agenda, but their strength depends on public visibility. When they are in the media, their voice outweighs that of business. Without it, the playing field looks more even and risks tipping back towards corporate quiet power. Yet this is not a fixed picture. With deregulation, simplification and cutting red tape high on the EU’s current agenda, business may regain the upper hand. The future of EU agenda-setting will depend on whether citizen groups can continue to turn public concerns into visible political demands.
