Traditional Brussels advocacy strategies are no longer sufficient in today’s world; it’s a political arena much more than a regulatory machine.
EU policymaking has become more political, fragmented and increasingly shaped by geopolitical pressure compared with previous mandates, says Sabrine Skiker, Director for Clean Growth at Hanover Communications.
In an interview with Euractiv, Skiker argues that traditional Brussels advocacy strategies, based on early engagement and technical evidence, remain necessary, but are no longer sufficient in a policy environment increasingly driven by political momentum, national interests and centralised decision-making within EU institutions.
EV: How does EU decision-making today differ from even one mandate ago?
Sabrine Skiker: EU decision-making has become far more political, fragmented and geopolitically driven. External pressures, from war to trade tensions, now shape priorities and outcomes much more directly.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine transformed the energy transition into a security priority and pushed the EU into crisis mode. Among other challenges, the EU will need to find responses to the energy price spikes due to the conflict in the Middle East. The same dynamic increasingly applies in other areas, where debates around ‘Made in Europe’, industrial resilience and competitiveness are shaping legislative priorities.
Decision-making has also become more top-down within the Commission. The Commission President sets clearer political direction; timelines are shorter, and political narratives often outweigh technical detail. The recent simplification agenda and the series of Omnibus packages illustrate how quickly political momentum can redefine priorities.
However, dynamics differ across institutions.
While the Council has adopted positions on several files quickly, reflecting a sense of urgency among member states, coalition-building in the European Parliament has become less predictable.
EV: If influence is no longer about working the system harder, but understanding it better, what does “understanding Brussels” really mean in 2026?
Understanding Brussels in 2026 means understanding power, politics and timing, not just process.
It means recognising that decisions are shaped as much by external pressure, national dynamics and political narratives as by technical arguments The debate around CBAM and ETS is demonstrating how climate policy is becoming inseparable from concerns about carbon leakage, global competitiveness, and trade retaliation. Direction is often set at the highest political level, before a proposal formally enters the legislative machine.
It also means looking beyond organigrams. Real influence sits in networks, trust and informal brokers, not only in formal titles. Mapping roles is the starting point. Understanding relationships, incentives and momentum is what makes the difference.
Above all, it means anticipating rather than reacting. Reading signals early, aligning with the broader political direction of the mandate and positioning before lines are fixed.
EV: What mistakes do organisations still make when trying to influence EU policy?
Sabrine Skiker: One common mistake is mapping structures rather than influence. Organisations still focus too narrowly on their own sector, while EU policymaking has become increasingly cross-cutting.
The Industrial Accelerator Act is a good example. Although led by Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné, the file involves many Commission departments. It has, for example, been reported that many DGs, including TRADE, INTPA, COMP, and CLIMA, issued negative opinions during the interservice consultation. Trade, industrial and climate policies are becoming integrated and engaging only with the lead DG would therefore be insufficient.
Another mistake is engaging only at a technical level in Brussels. Policy officers draft legislation, but political direction comes from cabinets and senior leadership. At the same time, Council positions are often shaped in national capitals, and national media can shift domestic pressure that feeds back into EU negotiations.
Advocacy is also too often treated as transactional. Influence is built on trust and long-term positioning, not on the number of meetings or social media visibility.
Finally, organisations engage too late, but more importantly, they often engage based on an incomplete picture of where influence actually sits.
This creates a structural blind spot. Organisations are active, but not always effective, because they are not targeting the drivers of influence in real time.
It is precisely to address this gap that Hanover developed the Power Index.
EV: The Power Index analyses thousands of media and social media interactions. What does that reveal that traditional advocacy tools miss?
Sabrine Skiker: Traditional advocacy tools tend to focus on formal roles, voting weights or declared positions. They tell you who should matter on paper. What they often miss is who is actually shaping the debate in real time.
Using Clean Corporate Fleets as a case study, The Power Index analysed more than 14,000 media and social media items over a 12-month period. In collaboration with our sister agency Madano, we designed it to move beyond static stakeholder lists and make influence visible.
Through a dedicated methodology, (KITE – Knowledge, Information, Trust and Engagement), we identify who drives the conversation, who amplifies it and where trust genuinely sits. It reveals informal networks, narrative momentum, and the connectors who bridge political, institutional, and national divides.
We distinguish between credibility builders, such as academics and technical experts, community connectors including policy professionals and sector voices, and influential amplifiers such as senior executives, who carry narratives to wider political and market audiences.
The result is actionable intelligence. It helps clients engage the actors who truly move outcomes and position their story early, before decisions are locked in.
EV: If the traditional playbook is no longer sufficient, where does the Power Index fit in helping organisations decide when not to engage, as much as when to engage?
Sabrine Skiker: The Power Index helps organisations decide not only when to engage, but how and with whom. Knowing who shapes that debate allows you to be selective rather than reactive.
It is about timing, but equally about calibration. Different actors respond to different entry points:
With credibility builders, what resonates most is evidence-based narratives. They respond to verified data, clear methodologies, and replicable models rather than concepts.
With community connectors, what resonates is local and operational impact. They care about tangible benefits for workers, SMEs, and communities rather than macro promises.
With influential amplifiers, what cuts through is system level momentum. They look for scale, finance, competitiveness, and the signal it sends to markets.
By distinguishing between these audiences, organisations can avoid broad, unfocused engagement. It allows them to prioritise where intervention will have real impact and where preparation or restraint may be more strategic than visibility.
EV: Geopolitics and national politics are exerting growing pressure on EU policymaking. How is that changing decisions in practice?
Sabrine Skiker: First, it affects speed. The EU has moved into crisis mode on strategic files. The Omnibus packages were pushed through even more quickly. Such acceleration reflects geopolitical pressure, even if the EU still struggles to respond at the same pace to broader competitiveness challenges.
Second, the centre of gravity has shifted upwards. The European Council increasingly sets clearer directions on key issues, and the Commission drafts proposals within that mandate.
Third, substance is changing. Strategic autonomy, simplification and competitiveness now frame many policy debates alongside a stronger focus on external economic security. This is visible in the acceleration of free trade agreements and a clear diversification of partnerships beyond traditional allies. National political dynamics play a more visible role
The debate on CO2 standards for cars is a good example. It became central to domestic political dynamics in Germany and exposed tensions even within the same political family between EPP Secretary Manfred Weber and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Overall, EU policymaking is now more politically steered, more exposed to domestic pressures and faster in moments of geopolitical urgency.
In that sense, the question is no longer simply how Brussels works, but where decisions are really shaped, and how early you are able to see them coming.
