The European Commission recently concluded public consultation on its Better Regulation framework, with a clear message emerging from participants: speed should not come at the expense of transparency. A majority of respondents – representing industry, consumers, the public sector, and transparency advocates – emphasized the importance of maintaining existing consultative mechanisms and impact assessments. This feedback comes as the Commission aims to accelerate decision-making processes, raising concerns that haste could undermine accountability.
Loopholes and Political Expediency
One key issue is the current ability to request exemptions from the Better Regulation framework. The Commission allows exemptions for “political imperatives,” deadlines, or security reasons, a practice critics say fosters loophole-seeking. Since 2021, the number of exemptions granted remains undisclosed, despite calls for transparency. This lack of clarity fuels distrust, as almost any initiative can be framed as an emergency justifying bypassing standard procedures.
The absence of data on exemption requests is problematic because it obscures whether regulations are being rushed through based on genuine necessity or political expediency.
Biased Consultations and Unequal Access
Concerns also extend to the structure of public consultations themselves. Some consultations, like that for the Digital Fairness Act, have been criticized for framing questions in a way that favors certain viewpoints while limiting options for opposing arguments. This creates an uneven playing field where dissenting voices are marginalized. To address this, the Commission should enforce more rigorous methodological standards, ensuring all perspectives have equal opportunity to be fully articulated.
Delayed Feedback and Lack of Clarity
Currently, stakeholders often wait months for summaries of consultation results, which can be subjective. The Commission should leverage AI to provide quicker, statistically-driven feedback, including breakdowns of sentiment and organizational positions. Furthermore, synopses of how stakeholder input was used (or rejected) should be automatically delivered to all participants, with clear explanations and shorter, more readable formats.
Expanding Transparency Beyond “Have Your Say”
The Better Regulation guidelines already recommend publishing summaries of consultations on the “Have Your Say” portal. However, the Commission should go further by mandating the publication of factual summaries for all consultation activities, including stakeholder meeting minutes and targeted consultation reports. Transparency must be a core principle, not just “good practice,” to prevent decisions being made behind closed doors and eroding public trust in EU institutions.
In conclusion, the European Commission faces a crucial choice: prioritize speed at the risk of undermining transparency and accountability, or ensure regulations are developed with open dialogue, clear justification, and full public access. Maintaining trust in EU institutions depends on choosing the latter.
