On 15 April 2026, SEAP, in collaboration with the Impact Assessment Institute, hosted a webinar on the topic of Better Regulation and Impact Assessments. This 90-minute event was led by Erik Akse, founder of the Impact Assessment Institute and an expert with over 20 years’ experience in EU decision-making. The webinar explored how better regulation tools can serve not only as procedural obligations but also as strategic advantages for public affairs professionals. The session addressed several key issues and provided a number of practical insights.
Involvement often too late
A key point that ran through the webinar was that most stakeholders get involved too late. By the time a legislative proposal becomes public, the European Commission has already gone through a lengthy process of planning, drafting and gathering evidence. As Akse explained, the actual process runs from defining the problem and determining the scope through to internal coordination and review before a proposal even reaches the public. Waiting for the proposal means working within a framework that someone else has already created.
The Commission’s coalition system
The Commission itself was described as a coalition system rather than a unified body. Numerous centres of power – from the Cabinet to the Directorates-General (DGs) and the Secretariat-General – influence the content of dossiers in various ways. Understanding where internal tensions lie is just as important as understanding the formal procedure.
Timing and structure are key
The webinar clearly demonstrated that volume does not equate to influence. The documents submitted must be available at the right time and structured in such a way that the institutions can actually take them on board and make use of them. Detailed reports submitted at the wrong time carry far less weight than a targeted, well-timed contribution during a consultation or evaluation phase.
A forward-looking approach
The session also covered how the Better Regulation cycle, which repeats predictably across Commission mandates, allows organisations to plan their engagement years in advance. With often four or more years between initial stock-taking and a formal proposal, the timeframe for designing the analytical architecture of a file is considerable.
The overarching takeaway was that successful EU public affairs work requires a forward-looking approach. Stakeholders who get involved at an early stage, use the Commission’s language and logic, and frame issues before positions are finalised will have more influence than those who only react after proposals have been published.