Absence of timely events creating policy attention opportunities
Your sectors or issues lack current newsworthy developments providing natural entry points for institutional attention and stakeholder dialogue.
Read more →Blog
Insights and analysis on EU policy, regulatory compliance, and strategic advocacy.
Expert analysis too specialised for policymaker comprehension and utilisation
Your thought leadership and technical analysis is too detailed and specialised for policymakers to readily comprehend and utilise—limiting expert knowledge dissemination to narrow technical communities rather than reaching Commission.
Read more →Organisational evidence dismissed as anecdotal rather than meeting policymaker standards
You're informing EU policy with operational experience and sector knowledge. Commission officials and Parliament staff dismiss it as anecdotal—not meeting credibility standards policy analysis requires.
Read more →Civil Society Organisations excluded from serious policy dialogues by the business community
Corporate Brussels establishments sometimes treat NGOs as adversaries to be managed rather than legitimate policy partners whose perspectives merit substantive engagement in regulatory development.
Read more →Academic Journal Publication Formats Incompatible With Policy Consumption Needs
Your cutting-edge research is relevant to EU policy development. But academic publication in peer-reviewed journals fails to reach policymakers who could benefit from this evidence.
Read more →EU Regulatory Requirements Falling on Unequipped Teams Creating Excessive Workload
EU compliance requirements fall on operational teams lacking specialised regulatory expertise or adequate resources—creating excessive workload leading to burnout, errors, and quality degradation in both compliance activities and core.
Read more →Membership Organizations Facing Internal Resistance to EU-Level Advocacy Investment
Your grassroots membership base views Brussels engagement as wasteful overhead disconnected from local service delivery..
Read more →Academic Incentive Structures Excluding Policy Activities From Promotion Criteria
Your faculty possess expertise highly relevant to EU policy development but can't dedicate time to Brussels engagement because time is focused on research publications and grant acquisition, not policy impact.
Read more →Management Structures Where Supervisors Lack EU Policy Expertise to Evaluate Performance
Your Brussels office reports to regional headquarters in another European city. Your supervisors lack EU institutional understanding necessary to evaluate Brussels staff performance, set appropriate priorities, or appreciate Brussels.
Read more →Complex Organisational Structures Creating Responsibility Diffusion and Strategic Drift
Your matrix management system means EU policy issues fall between multiple business units, functions, and geographic regions—with no clear accountability for Brussels engagement or policy strategy.
Read more →Constant Business Model Evolution creating a Moving Target for Policy Engagement
You're experiencing rapid growth and frequent strategic pivots. Your business model, target markets, and product priorities evolve faster than policy engagement can adapt.
Read more →Leadership Time Requirements Conflicting With Product Development and Revenue Generation Priorities
Effective Brussels engagement requires CEO personal involvement in high-level meetings and relationship building. But your leadership time investment in policy engagement competes with critical priorities: product development, fundraising, sales.
Read more →Inability to Retain Talented Staff Without Senior Role Advancement Opportunities
You're structured around operational functions, not policy expertise. You can't provide career progression paths retaining talented EU affairs professionals beyond mid-career stages.
Read more →Internal Department Location Determining Strategy Rather Than Organisational Objectives
Your EU affairs effectiveness depends on which department houses the function—with placement creating strategic orientations that may not align with actual organisational needs.
Read more →Constant Staff Rotation Preventing Relationship Continuity and Expertise Accumulation
Your EU affairs staff leave every 18-24 months, destroying accumulated institutional knowledge and Brussels relationship networks effective policy engagement requires.
Read more →Cultural Conflicts Over Decision-making Authority in International Collaborations
You're collaborating with European partners. Decisions that should take days drag into weeks of consultation.
Read more →Pressure for Immediate Results When Partnership Development Requires Years
Your quarterly funding cycles and annual performance reviews clash with European partnership timelines requiring multi-year relationship building.
Read more →Inability to Transform Conference Conversations into Actionable Collaboration
Brussels networking events yield promising conversations, exchanged contacts, vague "let's follow up" commitments—then nothing.
Read more →Persistent Funding Failures After Substantial Investment
EU programme success rates below 15%. Five or six rejected proposals. Hundreds of thousands spent on consultants, staff time, and partner coordination.
Read more →Discovering EU Funding Calls Too Late for Competitive Applications
You discover relevant EU funding opportunities weeks before the deadline—after competitors spent months preparing and forming consortia.
Read more →Specialised NGOs marginalised in broader policy discussions requiring multi-issue engagement
You're a civil society organisation focused on specific issues—particular environmental concerns, specific social justice topics, or narrow human rights questions.
Read more →Organisational policy documents failing to influence due to format and submission Issues
You're investing substantial effort developing comprehensive position papers on EU legislative proposals.
Read more →Approaching policy debates when they move faster than the response
EU legislative processes move through multiple stages—Commission proposal, Parliament committee consideration, Council negotiations, trilogue agreements—faster than your organisational decision-making can produce timely input.
Read more →Navigating the Fragmented EU Funding Landscape
You face a bewildering maze: Horizon Europe, LIFE Programme, Digital Europe, Creative Europe, ESF+, Connecting Europe Facility, Innovation Fund—dozens of instruments with overlapping themes but fundamentally different logics.
Read more →Breaking the EU Funding Rejection Cycle
Your projects are solid. Your team is qualified.
Read more →Responding to Existential Regulatory Threats
Organisations sometimes face regulatory proposals that could destroy their business model. These threats emerge when European Commission consultations propose frameworks that could fundamentally disrupt market access or operational.
Read more →Brussels Representation Without Sector Expertise
Familiarity with EU institutional procedures and maintaining networks are critical, however deep sector knowledge to translate technical operational realities into policy recommendations that resonate with legislators is a frequent challenge.
Read more →Developing a Distinctive Voice in Brussels
Competitors often influence EU regulatory frameworks in ways that entrench their market advantages—technical standards favouring incumbent technologies, market access requirements privileging established players, or exemptions benefiting.
Read more →Engaging Decision-Makers in EU Legislative Processes
Organisations struggle to identify who actually shapes EU policy outcomes. Relevant decision-makers shift as legislation moves through drafting, consultation, committees, and trilogues.
Read more →EU Regulations Changing Faster Than Industry Can Track
EU regulations evolve faster than organisations can monitor and respond. Legislative developments emerge simultaneously from multiple Commission directorates, each potentially reshaping operations, compliance, or market access.
Read more →