Is collaborative advocacy the future for associations?

The pandemic gave Europe the opportunity to accelerate digitisation. From events to congresses, education courses to online meetings, the not-for-profit sector either rose to the challenge in 2020 or piloted – and then adopted – new e-approaches in 2021 and embraced hybrid approaches by mid-2022.

But what about advocacy? How has the pandemic affected this traditional area of political representation? An area that, at the European level, traditionally centres around the administrative capital of Brussels; an area whose success relied on the in-person element; and an area whose processes are often little understood by executive decision-makers outside of the Brussels association bubble.

The dilemma of advocacy

There are very few measurements and evaluation markers within the area of advocacy, meaning that standardised data is often not available to evaluate activities and outcomes.

In the traditional structure of advocacy, one key individual within an organisation may lead but be supported by a team and suppliers. This structure means that one person will wear many hats and become the front-line representative of the cause to political audiences.

With change management and transformation processes taking place within many associations, this traditional structure does not allow consistent, direct exposure to the political arena of the broader group of experts within an association’s network. It also reduces expert involvement in direct decision-making, instead placing ‘power’ on an association staff member.

Photo by Oscar Mackey on Unsplash

Just having a physical presence isn’t enough anymore

Many associations host their headquarters in Brussels, Belgium or in other European countries including Switzerland. These associations have a physical presence through an office and team, all of whom are employees of the association. Often those who work in a Brussels office are local hires and come from across Europe or are sent or seconded by the association to the Brussels office.

In this structure, all parties are employed by the association – under Belgian law.

The own-office structure is effective for many associations operating a traditional, in-person structure and wishing to directly influence the political and regulatory agendas on a consistent basis. It enables knowledge and understanding to reach parties through established channels, executed by association staff with support from experts, often in an annual structure of events and meetings.

The flip side of this structure, however, is that the association’s network members, who are the experts in their field, have a relatively fixed exposure to the political arena. The experts will attend in-person meetings which mostly run to a traditional, fixed schedule each year. Such regularity has helped experts, often short on time and mobility, to take part in key political meetings and events in person. In this structure, most representation activities – and even decision-making – rely on office staff.

The own-office structure carries high financial costs, as well as tax and legal considerations for organisations with headquarters outside of Belgium. Costs arise through owning or renting property in the capital and employing staff, in addition to supplier costs for meetings, events and further support.

The area of public affairs is often little understood by executive decision-makers. As a result, it is generally deemed ‘important but complicated’ with the need for substantial investment justified, even if quantified data is not available. A lack of Key Performance Indicators may indeed lead to complex structures, wrong decision-making regarding tactics and, overall, carry a high price tag.

Post-pandemic the Brussels arena is changing. Gone are the days when organisations could rely on fixed-piece agendas each year: today’s landscape is not only accelerating in speed – but also in complexity. This calls for consistent involvement of many parties simultaneously.

Third-party contracts can be risky

Other associations have a physical Brussels presence through a third-party supplier - a contract with an established Brussels-based public affairs agency, legal firm, or smaller consultancy. A third-party entity is mandated, often following a competitive tender process, and serves strategic goals set by the association using its own formula for action at the institutional level.

The third-party will often report to an assigned member of staff in the association’s headquarters. Depending on the association’s structure and size, this person may be at the administrative, managerial, or executive level.

In this example, the association’s member of staff is employed in and according to the law of the country in which the association is domiciled. If needing to attend meetings and events in Brussels physically, the individual, particularly those based in associations outside of the EU, must ensure that their percentage of time spent in the EU capital is in keeping with regulation.

Added to this, the individual must have the knowledge and methodology to critically assess third-party activities and their effectiveness in terms of strategy, cost, efficiency, outcomes, and impact on a very regular basis. They must also be able to link these activities and results to other areas of the association’s portfolio to raise awareness and understanding of advocacy within wider network communities.

The risk of this structure is high. It can mean that associations quickly find themselves tethered to accounts that carry high costs and low impact, working to set processes. Worse, they may have little or no insight into how to judge success in the political arena, due to a lack of Key Performance Indicators, and no idea of how to change the structure. This is especially true if the association has not gone through the process of change management and business transformation.

This model can lead to a loss of control by the association over its Brussels presence and advocacy activities: the third party is constantly in control of activities which are set out according to an agreed budget to place the client in ‘set pieces’. This gives little opportunity to innovate.

This structure places the third-party at the front-line to political audiences, with association staff and then the experts following thereafter.

So, what’s the answer?

Auditing existing structures during the pandemic gave one association the opportunity to critically assess its Brussels-based representation and public affairs activities, following an annual set structure which had been in place since the early 2000s.

An agile advocacy structure can mobilise administrative staff and its experts in the association’s network in a collaborative approach. This results in a ‘framework’ and ‘content’ structure. Administrative staff represent the framework, and the experts represent the content. Supported by the administrative staff, the experts, who are housed within a dedicated committee structure, can directly access the political arena on a consistent – and spontaneous – basis, working virtually.

In this structure, decision-making is done by an advocacy committee, which includes members of the association’s leadership, placing all decision-making within the association. This allows for collective decisions taken by experts working toward consensus and directly supported by a dedicated administrative team.

Political and regulatory intelligence

To support the committee in its decision-making, an external expert consultant gives consistent updates on political and regulatory intelligence from the Brussels arena. This guided approach allows all parties to work in tandem. Coaching takes place by the external consultant to ensure that the association’s experts understand the context and opportunities of the political landscape and its actors at each step, and how this fits into the greater vision of the association’s strategy.

All this works in a virtual structure punctuated by one internal, on-site meeting held in Brussels each year and one committee meeting with association staff and the external consultant during the association’s annual congress.

Thanks to the external consultant’s wider network, individuals based in the ‘Brussels bubble’ are at hand should ad-hoc, on-the-ground representation be required. In today’s increasingly hybrid working models, however, this need is kept to a minimum.

Such a setup requires neither a fixed Brussels office nor a traditional third-party supplier based in Brussels. It instead places a streamlined administrative team within the association’s headquarters, performing work processes based on audited processes and structured into a wider framework.

This method embraces the post-pandemic workplace changes to the advantage of the associations, and, ultimately, provides a clear framework for measurement and evaluation – crucial in today’s digitised world.

Author's bio

Ursula Aring

Ursula Aring is an independent consultant in public, government and regulatory affairs. Since 2001, she has worked across the energy, energy management, construction and healthcare sectors in both private and public enterprise.

She designs and executes campaigns to represent business interests to market, media, political and regulatory audiences at national, regional and global levels.

A British and Swiss national, Ursula Aring holds a degree from The University of Leeds and further education from the Zurich Universities of Applied Sciences ZHAW and HWZ.