Europäischer Rechnungshof - European Court of Auditors
The impact of EU advisory bodies on policymaking is not systematically measured
- Photo Info
- Download
The impact of EU advisory bodies on policymaking is not systematically measured
- Opinions are sometimes delivered too late to influence EU decision-making
- No systematic assessment of the impact of opinions on legislation
- Opinions are often drafted with the help of experts, whose selection is not transparent
The European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions often struggle to deliver their opinions on time to influence decision-making at EU level, according to a special report published today by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). Both bodies were established to serve as a bridge between policymakers and members of society and other stakeholders. However, they do not systematically assess how opinions are reflected in final EU legislation, and lack transparent criteria for selecting the experts who provide specialised knowledge, the auditors found.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) are the European Union’s advisory bodies established by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The EESC is composed of representatives of employers, workers and civil society. The CoR is the formal voice of elected representatives of local and regional authorities. The EESC and the CoR can offer advice on their own initiative, and must be consulted when the European Commission makes legislative proposals to the European Parliament and Council (‘mandatory referrals’) in certain areas, although the opinions resulting from their work are not binding.
“Through their advisory role, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions are meant to contribute to democratic participation and legitimacy in policymaking”, said Katarína Kaszasová, the ECA Member responsible for the audit. “However, their contribution needs to be more timely, and they should assess the impact of their work in a systematic way”.
The auditors examined the entire production process for the opinions – from strategic planning to measuring impact – between 2019 and 2024. They found that both Committees have clear rules and guidance ensuring a consistent level of quality and standardisation. The primary input for opinions comes from Committee members, and they can be supported by experts. Experts are not paid for their work, but are entitled to reimbursement of travel costs, and flat-rate travel and meeting allowances. Both Committees use experts extensively, but neither has transparent criteria for selecting them. This leads to a risk of bias, hampers transparency, and poses a reputational risk, the auditors stress. The criteria for selecting experts should be established and publicly accessible. There should also be a central register of experts (which for the moment only the EESC has) to record their previous work for the Committees and areas of expertise.
Timing is crucial when it comes to the influence an opinion may have on policymaking. Opinions, however, do not always reach EU lawmakers on time to influence EU decision-making. During the 2019-2024 period, the EESC delivered its opinions on mandatory referrals ahead of the vote in the Parliamentary committee in 84 % of cases, while the CoR met these deadlines in only 74 % of cases. Neither Committee has an automated tool for tracking compliance with deadlines in a consistent and systematic manner, providing information about approaching institutional and political deadlines, or issuing automatic alerts for late opinions. Lastly, although the Committees monitor outreach, they focus mainly on visibility and volume rather than impact. The auditors recommend introducing qualitative and outcome-based indicators, such as the extent to which opinions are reflected in final legislation.
Background information
Special report 12/2026, “The EU’s advisory bodies: Processes to produce opinions are in place but timeliness and measuring impact remain a challenge”, is available on the ECA website, together with a one-page overview of the key facts and findings.
Contact:
ECA press office: press@eca.europa.eu