ThisprojecthasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion’sSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7)forresearch,technologicaldevelopmentanddemonstrationundergrantagreementno.613034.

BARRIERS WORKING PAPER NO. 11/2016

RidersontheStorm.

TSOsandtheEuropeanLevelofGovernance–AContestedTerrainforTSOs!

BarrierscoordinatorAnnetteZimmerAuthorsAnnetteZimmerPatrickHoemke

Recommendedcitationinformation:Zimmer,A.&Hoemke,P.(2016)“RidersontheStorm.TSOsandtheEuropeanLevelofGovernance-ContestedTerrainforTSOs!”,TSIWorkingPaperNo.11,SeventhFrameworkProgramme(grantagreement613034),EuropeanUnion.Brussels:ThirdSectorImpact.

BARRIERS

1

TABLEOFCONTENTS1 Introduction.............................................................................................................2

2 HarmonizingtheSector’sLegalEnvironment............................................................3

2.1 ContestedTerrain........................................................................................................3

2.2 LostinTransitionwithoneExecption.........................................................................4

2.2.1 TheStatuteforaEuropeanAssociation...........................................................................42.2.2 TheStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety.............................................................52.2.3 TheEuropeanFoundationStatute...................................................................................62.2.4 TheStatuteforaEuropeanMutualSociety.....................................................................8

3 TheRolling-OutoftheTSOCommunityinBrussels...................................................9

3.1 TheCommissionintheDriver’sSeat...........................................................................9

3.2 StagesofDevelopment.............................................................................................11

3.2.1 Non-action.....................................................................................................................113.2.2 Enthusiasm.....................................................................................................................113.2.3 Disillusionment..............................................................................................................15

4 ImpressionsfromtheField.....................................................................................18

4.1 TSOInfrastructure.....................................................................................................18

4.2 BricolageofOpinions................................................................................................19

4.2.1 EU-FundingandModesofFinancing.............................................................................204.2.2 AccessibilityandRepresentation...................................................................................21

5 Summary................................................................................................................22

References.........................................................................................................................25

EUSources.........................................................................................................................28

InterviewsandFocusGroups.............................................................................................29

Attachment:ExemplarypresentationofTSOplatforms....................................................31

PolicyField“SocialServices”..............................................................................................31

PolicyField“Sports”...........................................................................................................33

2

1 IntroductionInavarietyofpolicyfields,theEuropeanlevelofpolicy-makinghassignificantlygainedimportanceinthelastdecades.Againstthisbackground,itismostlikelythatthethirdsectorisfollowingthispathbytryingtoinfluenceBrussels’policymachine.Thirdsectororganizations(TSOs)arepresentalloverEuropeprovidingcentralavenuesforcitizenparticipationinpubliclife;intheareaofsocialserviceprovision,theyarecentraleconomicplayersandofparticularrelevanceforthelabourmarketinmanycountries.InalmostallEuropeancountriesandspecificallyintheareasofsportsaswellasartsandculture,TSOsarecoreinstitutionsforattracting,organizingandaffiliatingvolunteers.Andfinally,manyTSOsarecampaigningorlobbyinginattemptstoinfluencepolicyandpoliticsathome.AsillustratedbythissummaryofTSO’sfieldsofaction,thethirdsectorconstitutesamulti-facettedandhighlydiversesector.However,manyofthesefields–suchassocialservices,sportsortheartsandculture–arestillmoreorlessthoroughlyundertheauspicesofthememberstatesaccordingtotheEUsubsidiarityrule.

Hence,howimportantistheBrusselspolicymachineryforthewellbeingofTSOsinthememberstates?Wereandaretherelegalinitiativeswhichaimatremedyingdisablingfactorsthateitherhinderpan-EuropeanactivitiesofTSOsorthatrestricttheorganizationstoliveuptotheirpotentialsinthememberstates?HarmonizingthediverselegalenvironmentsofTSOsinEuropemightbeadecisiveinstrumentforimprovingtheirworkingconditionsinthememberstates.AnddoestheEUprovideavenuesenablingTSOstocontributetotheEuropeanpolicyprocess?ThefollowingreportwhichispartofworkpackagefiveoftheEU-fundedresearchnetwork“ThirdSectorImpact”(TSI)beginstoengagewiththesequestions.ThereportdrawsheavilyontheoutcomesandpublicationsofpreviousEU-fundedresearch(Kendalletal.2009),especiallytheThirdSectorEuropeanPolicyproject.BasedontheresultsofinterviewsandfocusgroupsrecentlyconductedinBrusselsundertheframeworkofthecurrentprojectTSI,italsoprovidesatentativeassessmentofhowrepresentativesofTSOsandpolicyexpertslocatedinBrusselsperceivetheEuropeanpolicymachinerytoday.

Thereportisorganizedintothreechapters.Itbeginswithadiscussionoflegalinitiativesthathaveinstigatedadiscussionofthepotentialforthe“homogenization”oflegalformsrelevantforthirdsectoractivitiesinEurope;morespecifically,theStatutesforaEuropeanAssociation,aEuropeanFoundationandaEuropeanCooperativeSociety.Secondlyfromatop-downperspectiveandreferringtothreedistinctiveperiodsofdevelopmentofa“thirdsectorpolicycommunity”identifiedbypreviousresearch(Kendalletal.2009),itisdiscussedwhytheEuropeanpolicymachineryandinparticular

3

theCommissionbegantoliaisewithandtointegrateTSOssuccessivelyintothepolicyprocess.Finally,thethirdchapterprovidesanimpressionandassessmentofhowTSOsoperatingattheEuropeanlevelofgovernancecurrentlyperceiveandassesspotentialsandhurdlestoinfluencethepolicyprocess;andmorepreciselywhethertheyseethemselvesinapositioninwhichtheyareabletoremoveobstaclesthathinderTSOsatthegrassrootlevelinthememberstates.

2 HarmonizingtheSector’sLegalEnvironment

2.1 ContestedTerrain

InitiativestoenactEuropeanlegalstipulationsforTSOswiththetwofoldgoalofharmonizingthelegalenvironmentandfacilitatingcross-borderactivitiesoftheorganizationshaveprovedtobeverydifficult,timeconsumingandbyandlargeunsuccessful.Drawingonpreviousresearchthatundertookanin-depthinvestigationofthereasonswhytheinitiativeoftheEuropeanStatuteofAssociationsfinallyfailedaftermorethantenyearsoftrialanderror(Kendall/Fraisse2009),thefollowingkeyfeatureshinderingtheenactmentofEuropeanlegalstatutesrelevantforTSOscanbesummarized:First,thereisalackofinterestandhencesupportfromtheTSOcommunitiesinthememberstatetostriveforaunificationoflegalregulations.Legalissuesareperceivedascomplexanddifficulttocommunicate,ascomparedtootherissueswhicharelinkedtospecificconstituenciessuchaspersonswithdisabilities,women,workers,orrefugees(Heuberger2015:127).Consequently,itisdifficultforTSOumbrellaorganizationswhichsupportaninitiativetojoinforceswithothers.Thishindersthebuildingof“advocacycoalitions”ofTSOsbasedinBrusselswhichareactiveindifferentsectors.

Secondly,thememberstatestendtobeveryreluctantregardingtheharmonizationoflegalissueswhicharenotclearly,directlyandunambiguouslyconnectedwiththeconsolidationoftheinternalmarket.Thekeyargumentagainstlegalharmonizationisrelatedtotheconceptofsubsidiarityandtranslatesintoaprotectionofthestatusquo.Thedifferentconceptualizationsofthethirdsectoranditsorganizationsinthememberstatesfurtherimpedeeasyconsolidationandagreements.Finally,thefeasibilityofastraight-forwardEuropeanregulationisoftenputintoquestionbythecommunityoflegalexpertsarguingthatlegalharmonizationshouldfollowatwo-stepapproachofwhichthefirststepconsistsofastock-takingoftheinherentcharacteristicsoftheexistinglegal

4

formsinEurope.Againstthisbackground,ifandwhensufficientclarityhasbeenachieved,asecondstepshouldfollow:considerationofthepossibilityofcreatinganewlegalformwhichbuildsonthisbackgroundinformationandexpertise(Kendall/Fraisse2009:2019).

TheevidencesuggeststhattherearemanyhurdlestobetakeninordertotransformalegalinitiativewhichaimsatharmonizingtheverydiverselegalstipulationsforTSOsandtheiractivitiesinthememberstatesintoaEuropeanStatute.Fromapolicypointofview,theprocedureappliedinBrusselsforprocessingtheissueistheCommunityMethodwhichtranslatesintoasituationinwhichtheCommissiontakestheinitiativeandallEuropeaninstitutionsfromtheParliamenttotheCouncilofMinistershavetoagreewiththeproposal.ThefollowingshortsummaryofthehistoryofthedifferentinitiativesinfavorofEuropeanStatutes,inparticularlegalformsforassociations,foundationsandco-operatives-showsthatwithoneexception–theStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety(SCE)–todate,theyhaveallfailedontheirwaythroughtheEuropeaninstitutions.ItalsobecomesclearthattheCouncilofMinistersconstitutesthemostdifficultbarrierforaharmonizationoflegalformsrelatedtoTSOactivitiesinEurope.

2.2 LostinTransitionwithoneExecption

2.2.1 TheStatuteforaEuropeanAssociationAlreadyin1984,theEuropeanParliamentaddressedtheCommissiontoinitiateaproposalforaStatuteforaEuropeanAssociation,definedasa“permanentgroupingofnaturalorlegalpersonswhosememberspooltheirknowledgeoractivitieseitherforapurposeinthegeneralinterestorinordertodirectlyorindirectlypromotethetradeorprofessionalinterestsofitsmembers.”1AsKendallandFraisseoutline,theinitiativewasheavilysupportedbytheFrenchpoliticianNicoleFontaine,whowaslatertobecomethePresidentoftheEuropeanParliament(1999-2002)andwhojoinedforceswithCEDAG–theEuropeanCouncilforVoluntaryOrganizations–whichatthattimewasstilloperatingfromParis.Indeed,theproposalwasnotrestrictedtoalegalstipulation,butpartofanencompassingpackagewhichwasverymuchinlinewiththenotionoftheeconomiesociale(Kendall/Fraisse2009:211).Theauthorsspecificallydrawattentiontoafar-reachingpoliticalprogramthatwasoriginallyconnectedwiththedraftingofthestatute.Associationsweresituatedalongsidecooperativesandmutuals,and“theEuropeanStatuteofAssociations(ESA)hadbecomepartofavoluminouspackagethatincluded

1EuropeanCommission,20132EASEA,2010.3EuropeanCommission,2003,CouncilRegulation(EC)No1435/2003.

5

regulations,aswellasaccompanyingdirectivesonworkerparticipation”(Kendall/Fraisse2009:211).MetwithresistancefromvariousactorsinBrusselsandparticularlyinthememberstates,theproposalwasfinallywithdrawnbytheCommissionin2005“inthenameofadministrativesimplificationofitsworkprogram”.2Apparently,itwasexpectedthatsuchastatutewouldnotreachtherelevantmajorityintheCouncil:Memberstategovernmentswerenotwillingtoagreetoalegalstipulationbypassingregulationsonassociationsinthememberstates.Suchastatuteatleasthadtobeincompliancewiththeregulationsinthedifferentcountries(Charrad2014:194).Thisaccordanceisdifficulttoachieve,asassociationsthroughoutEuropehavedifferentfunctions,carryoutdifferenttasksandaregovernedinsignificantlydifferentways.However,thepackagewasnotthoroughlyabandoned;theSwedishPresidencydecidedearlyinthe2000stocontinuewiththestipulationsforco-operativesandmutuals.

2.2.2 TheStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSocietyInJuly2003,theStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety(SCE)3wasapproved.AccordingtoadefinitionissuedbytheCommission,“co-operativesareautonomousassociationsmadeupofpersonscomingtogethervoluntarilytomeettheircommoneconomic,socialandculturalaspirationsandneeds,throughthemeansofacompanyownedcollectivelyandwherethepowerisdemocraticallyexercised”.4ItishopedthattheEuropeanStatutemightfacilitate“equaltermsofcompetitionbetweencooperativesocietiesandcapitalcompanies”5.Furthermore“thedevelopmentofcross-borderactivitiesofcooperativesocieties”6shouldbefacilitated.Thereisevenreferenceto“administrativeandlegalbarriersthatshouldnotexistinacommonmarket”7whicharesuccessfullyaddressedbythenewstatute.However,theStatuteisnotwidelyusedinthememberstates.Atthesametime,evenifitwereimplementedthroughoutEurope,theStatutemightbetoocomplexanddifficultforsmallco-operatives.8DespitethiscaveatitisworthmentioningthattheinaugurationofaEuropeanStatuteforCo-operativeswentinparallelwithanupswingoftheco-operativemovementinEurope,particularlyinareas

2EASEA,2010.3EuropeanCommission,2003,CouncilRegulation(EC)No1435/2003.4SummariesofEUlegislation:StatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety,keyterms.5SummariesofEUlegislation:StatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety,summary,sentencetwo.6SummariesofEUlegislation:StatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety,summary,sentencethree.7Compare:StatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety,p.11.8Compare:SummariesofEUlegislation:StatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety,Relatedacts,ReportfromtheCommission.

6

withastrongbusinesscomponent.InItaly,co-operativeshavebeenafastgrowingsegmentofthethirdsectorinthenewmillennium(Ranci/Montagnini2010);andinGermany,co-operativeshavebecomepopularintheso-calledsectorofgreenenergy(Schröder/Walk2014).

Ingeneral,theStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSocietyappearstohavebeeninlinewiththeEuropeanUnion’soverallpriorities,especiallyintermsofeconomicgrowthanddevelopment.Co-operativesareoftenseenasclosertothemarketlogicand/ormore‘economic’actorsthanassociationsandfoundations.Thesecharacteristics,correlatingmoreobviouslywiththecoregoalofmarketconsolidation,mayhelpexplainwhyapan-Europeanmodelwasperceivedasmoresalientinthiscase,receivedhighersupportthanitscounterpartsforassociationsandfoundationsandwasfinallyadopted.Inthelightofinternalmarketpoliciesthisstatuteaimedatthereductionofbarriersforcross-borderbusinessactivitieswithintheSocialEconomy.Cooperativeswererecognizedasmajorplayersinthisfieldwhosedevelopmentwaslimitedbydifferingframeworksofnationalregulations.However,itseemsthatthepan-Europeanmodelhasuntilnownotcontributedsignificantlytoafurtheradvancementofcross-borderactivities(Interview3,p.24).

2.2.3 TheEuropeanFoundationStatuteItisstrikinghowandwhyafteranintensiveprocessofconsultationswhichinvolvedthemajorEuropeaninstitutionsanddespitestrongrepresentationofthefoundationsector–theEuropeanFoundationCenter(EFC)–inBrussels,theinitiativetoestablishaEuropeanFoundationStatuteultimatelyfailed.9

ThetopicwasfirstaddressedbytheCommissionin2003alongsideitsActionPlanonModernisingCompanyLawandEnhancingCorporateGovernance.10TheParliamentsupportedtheeffortin2006byenactingtheEuropeanParliament’sResolutiononrecentdevelopmentsandprospectsinrelationtocompanylaw,whichadvisedtheCommissiontocontinueworkingonaEuropeanFoundationStatute.11InNovember2007,theCommissionlaunchedafeasibilitystudyanalysingtheimportanceoffoundationsfortheEuropeaneconomy.12Supplementingthestudy,theCommissionhostedaconsultationin200913thatservedasaforumfortheCompanyLawExpertGroup(CLEG),consistingof

9http://epthinktank.eu/2012/11/23/a-statute-for-european-foundations-2/10Compare:ConsultationonaPossibleStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,16.2.2009,p.3.11Compare:EuropeanParliament,4.7.2006,No.34.12Compare:UniversitätHeidelberg;MaxPlanckInstitut,2008,p.20.13Compare:ConsultationonaPossibleStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,16.2.2009.

7

nationalexperts,whocollectedinformationonlegislationoffoundationsinthememberstates.Themeetingsofthisgrouparewelldocumented.14Additionally,thankstotheinitiativeoftheEuropeanParliament,theCommissionmadethefeasibilitystudyaccessible;thestudywasincludedintheCommission’sResolutiononSocialEconomyinFebruary2009.15Furthermore,theCommissioncontinuedtoworkonthetopicbycollectingmoreinformationandbyhostinga“EuropeanFoundationsWeek”inJune2010.16Inthesameyear,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee(EESC)alsosupportedtheinitiativebycommentingthedraftoftheStatute.17Moreoverin2011,theCommitteeoftheRegionssupportedtheinitiative.18Inordertoroundupthepositiveresponseofthestakeholders,apublicconsultationwasinitiatedbytheCommissioninthesameyear.Andbackedbythepositiveoutcomeoftheconsultation,theCommissionagainunderlinedtheimportanceofaEuropeanFoundationStatute,inparticularwithrespecttoEurope’s2020objectives.19Thedraftingofthestatutewasfinalizedin2012.20Thelegalstipulationscoveredamongotherstopicsofhowtoestablishandgovernafoundation.Mostimportantly,equaltaxtreatmentfordonorswasguaranteedthroughoutEuropeandthetransferoffundsfromonememberstatetoanotherwasfacilitated.21Again,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteestronglysupportedthedraft22byunderliningthe“contributionoffoundationsinnumerousareas”.23TheCommitteeoftheRegionsaskedforsomechangestothedraftbutalsoendorsedtheproposaloraEuropeanFoundationStatuteinNovember2012.24In2013,theproposalwasalsostronglysupportedbytheParliamentthatsuggestedseveralmodificationswhich

14Compare:EuropeanCommission,8.2.2012,ProposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,p.4.15Compare:EuropeanParliamentresolutiononSocialEconomy,No.11.16Compare:EuropeanCommission,8.2.2012,ProposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,p.4.17Compare:EuropeanCommission,8.2.2012,ProposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,p.3andEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee,28.4.2010.18CommiteeofRegions,31.3./1.42011,No.16andEuropeanCommission,8.2.2012,ProposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,p.3.19EuropeanCommission,13.4.2011,p.7.20EuropeanCommission,8.2.2012,ProposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation21Compare:EuropeanCommission,8.2.2012,ProposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,p.6-7.22Compare:EuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitee,16.9.2012,1.Conclusionandrecommendations,1.1.23EuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitee,16.9.2012,3Generalcomments,3.1.24CommiteeoftheRegions,11.2012,passage1-3.

8

aimedatguaranteeingsustainability,seriousnessandviabilityofEuropeanfoundations.Allinall,nothingseemedtostandinthewayoftheendorsementofthestatute.However,thenewCommissionunderPresidentJunkerwithdrewtheproposalinDecember2014.25ThecentralargumentforthedismissalwasthattheproposalwasnotsufficientlysupportedbytheCouncilofMinisters.26AftercomingalongwayanddespitethebackingofseveralEuropeaninstitutions,theproposalwasblockedbytheCouncilofMinisters.

Moreresearchisneededtoestablishwhichnationallevelactorswereresponsibleforthisstalledtrajectory.ButthisexampleillustratesthecomplexityofEUpolicymakingintermsofthegreatnumberofactorsandunderscoresthecontinuedimportanceoftheCouncilasasuperordinateinstitutioninEUpolicydevelopment(Naurin,David(2015):).Moreover,alsothecommunityofTSOsontheEuropeanlevelofgovernanceisshapedbyagreatvarietyoforganizationsandplatforms,whichfurthercomplicatesdecision-makinginmattersconcerningtheThirdSectorinEurope.

2.2.4 TheStatuteforaEuropeanMutualSocietySimilardifficultiesbecomeapparentinthecaseoftheaspiredEuropeanmutualsociety.TheEuropeanCommissionpresentedaproposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanmutualsocietyalreadyin1991.27FollowinginternaldiscussionsbetweentheEUinstitutions,includinganapprovingopinionbytheEconomicandSocialCommittee28,amendmentsbytheParliamentandtheCouncilwereincludedintheproposal.However,itneverreacheddecision-making,evenifaconsultationlaunchedbytheCommissionintheearly2000sdemonstratedtheneedforaEuropeanmutualsociety.29,Duetothislackofprogressinthepolicy-makingprocess,theCommissionwithdrewtheproposalfromtheEuropeanagendain2005.30

However,“(t)hisdecisionledtodisappointmentanddissatisfactioninthemutualsector”(AMICE/AIM2008:3.2),whofoundthat“cross-bordercooperationbetweenmutualsocietieshasbeenhamperedwithintheEuropeanUnionbylegalandadministrative

25Compare:EuropeanCommission,2015B,Justice,ConsumersandGenderEquality.26HouseofCommons,11February2015,4AStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,4.6.27CompareCOM/1991/273..28CompareOpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommitteeontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation(EEC)ontheStatuteforaEuropeanMutualSociety,OJC223,31.8.1992,p.48–51.29Comparehttp://www.amice-eu.org/ems.aspx.30CompareCommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheCouncilandtheEuropeanParliament.OutcomeofthescreeningoflegislativeproposalspendingbeforetheLegislator.COM(2005)462final.

9

difficultieswhichshouldbeeliminatedinawelloperatinginternalmarket”(AMICE/AIM2008:1.2).Therefore,theAssociationofMutualInsurersandInsuranceCooperativesinEurope(AMICE),togetherwiththeAssociationInternationaledelaMutualité(AIM),preparedadraftregulationinordertore-initiatethepolicy-makingprocess.Inthefollowing,thetopicwasaddressedonlybytheEuropeanParliament,whosupportedtheinitiativeandcalledrepeatedlyontheCommissiontoadvancetheproposal.31However,theproposalstillstalled,untilfinallytheParliamentadoptedtheresolutionof14March2013withrecommendationstotheCommissionontheStatuteforaEuropeanmutualsociety(2012/2039(INL)),onthebasisofanown-initiativereportofMr.BerlinguerMEP.Inaddition,theParliamentadoptedanEuropeanAddedValueAssessment(EAVA1/2013),inwhichthebenefitsofaEuropeanmutualsocietyareevaluatedfromasocial,economic,andlegalpointofview.ThiswasfollowedupbyaconsultationlaunchedbytheCommission,whichwasoverallpositivetowardsthecreationofaEuropeanmutualsociety.32Followingfromthisassessment,theCommission“islookingintothepossibilityofproposingaRegulationcontainingtherulesonthecreationofaEuropeanMutualbyenterprisesfromdifferentEUcountries”33.However,noprogressseemstohavebeenmadeinthisregardsofar,demonstratingthelengthyandapparentlydifficultpolicyprocesses.

3 TheRolling-OutoftheTSOCommunityinBrussels

3.1 TheCommissionintheDriver’sSeat

Thefactthatthereisathirdsectorcommunity,evenaspecificorganizationalfieldcomprisedofCivilSocietyOrganizations(CSOs)orTSOsactiveinBrusselsisnotcontested,evenifthebestwaytocharacterizeitsboundariesandprioritiescontinuestobeamatter

31Compare,amongothers,DeclarationoftheEuropeanParliamentof10March2011onestablishingEuropeanstatutesformutualsocieties,associationsandfoundations,P7_TA(2011)0101.32Compare:SynthesisreportonthecommentsontheopenconsultationonthemeasuresproposedbyastudyfinancedbytheCommissionforthepromotionofmutualsocietiesintheEUandthenecessityforaStatusforaEuropeanMutualSociety.http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=7982.33Compare:http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=7982(Lastupdate:12/10/2015).

10

ofconsiderabledebate(Johansson/Kahn2015:9;Ruzza2015:23ff;SanchezSalgado2014).ItisacknowledgedthattheEuropeanCommissionhasplayedacrucialroleinthedevelopmentofBrussels“organizedcivilsociety”community(Georgakakis2015).However,itisalsoobviousthattheCommissionhasnotequallymadeuseofthemulti-functionalityofTSOs.Veryoften,theyaresimultaneouslyprovidingavenuesforcivicparticipation,mostprominentlyintheformofvolunteering,actingaslobbyistonbehalfoftheirconstituenciesorthegeneralpublic.Inaddition,inmanyEuropeancountriestheyarehighlyengagedintheproductionofservices,mostprominentlyintheareaofsocialservicesbutalsoinsportsorintheartsandculture(Evers/Zimmer2010).

TheTSIprojectdistinguishesbetweendifferentdimensionsof“impact”whichfromafunctionalpointofviewTSOsbringaboutincertainenvironments(Simsaetal2014:27ff).Doubtlessly,manyTSOshaveaneconomicimpact:AsproducersofsocialservicesandasemployersofsignificantimportanceinmanyEuropeancountries–particularlyinthesocialdomain–TSOsareparticipatingintheeconomy.But,dependingonthepoliticalopportunitystructureofthecountryandpolicyfield,TSOsalsoparticipateingovernancearrangementsprovidingexpertiseandoractingaslobbyistsonbehalfoftheirconstituenciesorthewiderpublic.HenceTSOsalsohaveapoliticalimpact.Andfinallyasmembershiporganizations,TSOscontributetotheintegrationofcitizensintothegeneralpublicandthepolicycommunityatlarge.Oneoftheirclassical“impacts”consistsofservingasa“transmissionbelt”fordemandsandconcernsofcitizensandthepoliticalapparatus.

Initially,theEuropeanCommissionhasnotconsideredtheseorganizations‘players’inEUdevelopmentprocesses.Butsinceithasstartedtorecognizethem,theCommissionhasreferredtotheirfunctionsandimpactsinwhatappearstobequiteaselectiveandpartialway,linkedtothesometimesunpredictabledirectionoftheEU’soverallapproachtointegration.Kendalletal.(2009:346ff)retrospectivelyidentifiedthreedifferentdevelopmentalphasesofBrussels’thirdsectorcommunity.EachofthesephaseswasinfluencedbytheEuropeanCommissionreferringtoacertainrationaleortheoreticalconcept.Moreover,approachesaimingatastrongerliaisonoftheCommissionwithafairlyestablishedthirdsectorcommunityinBrusselswereprimarilyinitiatedbymembersofthecentre-leftandnotbyPresidentsoftheCommissionsrepresentingtheconservativepartyspectrum.Butallinall,Brussels’primeinterestinTSOshasprimarily,butnotexclusively,beenlinkedtotheeconomicimpactoftheorganizations;furthermore,inparticulartheTSO’sumbrellaorganisationshavebeenperceivedas“useful”forproviding“asecondopinion”andfield-specificexpertisethattiesinwiththe

11

politicalimpactofTSOswhichtimeandagainwasindicatedbymembersofBrusselsthirdsectorcommunity(seepart4).

3.2 StagesofDevelopment

3.2.1 Non-actionThefirstphase,titled“prehistory”byKendalletal.(2009:346),wasindeedaperiodofnon-action,althoughitstretchedforabouthalfoftheEU’slifetimesofar,rangingfromthebeginningoftheEuropeanCommunitytotheearly1980s.AccordingtoKendalletal.,theRomeTreatymadereferencetonon-profit-makingcompanies,butitalsomentionedthattheseareoutsideitsrelevance.Furthermore,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee(EESC)wasestablishedinthistimespan,butitsactivitieswerenotgearedtowardsTSOs.TheCommitteewasconceptualizedasanadvisortootherEuropeaninstitutionsinstead(Kendalletal.2009:347).Indeed,asarecentstudysummarizes:TSOs“havenotbeenproactiveintheirprocessofadaptationtotheEU.Onthecontrary,theadaptationof(T)SOshasmainlybeenEU-driven”(SanchezSalgado2014:3).

3.2.2 Enthusiasm

TSOsstrengtheningtheUnion’sdevelopment

QuiteimportantforthedevelopmentofaTSOcommunityinBrusselswasthepresidencyofJacquesDelors(1985-1995).Underhisleadership,theprocessofEuropeanintegrationre-startedsuccessfully;furthermore,DelorshadamissionandavisionregardingtheroleandfunctionofTSOsinEurope(Delors2004).Hisfocuswasclearlyontheeconomicimpactofthesector.Accordingly,heperceivedTSOsas“anEUpolicyinstrumentforstrengtheningeconomicdevelopment,andalsoforcopingwiththeemploymentproblem”(Kendalletal.2009:348).InlinewiththeFrenchtradition,Delor’spromotionofTSOs’presenceinBrusselsfocusedprimarilyonco-operativesandmutualsocietiesasimporteconomicactors.WithsupportoftheCommission,CEDAG–theEuropeanCouncilofAssociationsofGeneralInterest–wasfoundedin1989inParis.Atfirst,CEDAGservedprimarilyasaprominentmouthpieceofthe“socialeconomy”thathasalonghistoryparticularlyintheMediterraneancountries.InparallelandfollowingtheParliament’sFontaineReports(1987a,b),twolegislativeinitiatives–thedevelopmentofaEuropeanStatuteofAssociationsandaStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety–weresetinmotionwithverydifferentoutcomes.Thefirstinitiativefailedwhilethesecondmaterializedin2003(seepart2).

12

AlreadyinitiatedbyDelors,theconceptualizationofTSOsasatoolforlabourmarketpoliciesgainedparticularmomentuminthelate1990s.Increasingly,TSOsbecamelinkedtothediscussionsoneconomicdevelopmentandthefightagainstunemploymentandsocialexclusion.Incloseconnectionwiththepromotionofsmallandmiddle-sizedenterprisesandwithaspecialeyetovulnerablegroupssuchasdisabledcitizens,thepotentialsofTSOsforaddressinglabourmarketproblemswereincreasinglystressed.In1997asacounterpartofCEDAGaspecialdepartment–theSocialEconomyUnit–wasestablishedwithintheGeneralDirectorate23oftheCommissionthatwasatthattimealsoresponsibleforsmallbusinessandtourism.Kendalletal.(2009)intheirhighlyinformativebookchaptercometotheconclusionthatmoreorlessnothingcameoutofthisphaseofdevelopmentwhichthey,therefore,titledasthephase(1985-1997)of“frustratedpolicyengagement”(Kendalletal.2009:348).However,currentEUdiscoursesaswellasinvestmentsinresearchareagaininfluencedbytherationaleofasectorwhoseorganizationsmightprovidemoreappropriatesolutionstoproblemsofsocialexclusionandunemploymentthanotheractorsofmarketeconomies(seeInnoSiandEFESEEIS).34

InparallelbutnotinterconnectedwiththeconceptualizationofTSOsasapartofthesocialeconomy,CommissionactivitiesunintentionallyfacilitatedthegrowingimportanceofanothermajorTSOumbrellaorganizationinBrussels,theSocialPlatformwhichtodayalignsmorethan40TSOsworkingonsocialissues.However,adrivingforceforthefurtheradvancementoftheBrusselsTSOcommunityactiveinthesocialdomainwasthevigorouscritiqueoftheCommission’ssocialeconomyapproach.ThatcritiquewasputforwardbythepowerfulGermanFreeWelfareAssociationswhichperceivedtheirpositioninthenationalandinternationalwelfaredomainthreatenedbytheCommission’sdirectiveonServicesofGeneralEconomicInterest(Zimmeretal.2009:33;Kendalletal.2009:358).Inanutshell:Originally,thedirectivewasdesignedinsuchawaybytheDGforInternalMarketthatanysocialserviceinthewelfaredomainwastreatedlikeacommodityandhencewastobesubjecttosimilarregulationsthananyothermarketablegoods.ThankstotheconcertedlobbyactivitiesoftheWelfareAssociationsinGermanyandinBrusselsviaadiversesetofpublicaffairsbureausandumbrellaorganizationssuchastheETWelfareandtheSocialPlatform,thedirectivewasfinallywatereddowninsuchawaythattheuniquepositionoftheWelfareAssociationsinthemarketsofsocialserviceswerenotthoroughlyjeopardizedinGermanyandinotherEuropeancountries–e.g.Spain,Poland-whereparticularlytheChurchaffiliatedCaritas

34http://www.fp7-efeseiis.eu;http://innosi.eu.

13

hadstartedtomakeinroads.TheTSOcommunityofsocialserviceproviderssuccessfullyarguedthattheyaredistinctfromfor-profitprovidersbecausetheyareworkingclosetotheircommunities,whichisevidencedbythemanyvolunteerswhoareengagedlocallyintheprovisionofsocialservicesdeliveredbyTSOs.Accordinglyalmostthroughthebackdoor,volunteeringasaspecificitycloselyaffiliatedwithTSOsdevelopedintoarationaleordistinctivefeatureofTSOswhichsetsthemapartfromthebusinessworld.Althoughwithverydifferentintentions,bothdevelopmentswerecloselylinkedtotheeconomicimpactsofTSOsandtotheirroleandfunctionasserviceprovidersandemployersofsignificantimportancealloverEurope.

TSOsaddressingthe“democraticdeficit”

ThethirdphaseoftheproliferationofTSOsinBrusselswascloselyconnectedwiththePresidencyofRomanoProdiwhoseGeneralSecretariattriedtoaddressthechronic“democraticdeficit”ofEuropeanpolicy-makingbyadvancingtheintegrationofTSOumbrellasintotheEuropeanpolicyprocess.ComparedtoitspredecessorstheProdiCommissionbuiltonaverydifferentunderstandingofthe“impacts”ofTSOs(Simsaetal.2014:32).Duringthisperiod,expertiseincertaindomains,representingspecificconstituenciesandgivingvoicetovulnerablegroupsandfinallyoperatingasa“transmissionbelt”thatfacilitatescommunicationbetweendifferentlevelsofEU-governanceseemedtobemakingTSOsandinparticulartheirumbrellaswithlinkstoanumberofEuropeancountriesinterestingpartnersfortheCommission.ItalsohopedthatTSOsmightfunctionasacounterbalancetothestrongrepresentationofbusinessinterestsinBrussels.HowthiswastobeachievedcaneasilybetracedbytakingintoaccountthevariousEUdocumentspublishedintheearly2000s.OfparticularimportancearetheCommission’sWhitePaperonEuropeanGovernanceof2001(COM/2001/428final)anditsCommunication“TowardsaReinforcedCultureofConsultationandDialogue–GeneralPrinciplesandMinimumStandardsforConsultationofInterestedParties”(COM/2002/704final)of2002.TheWhitePaperhighlightedtheimportanceofTSOsaschannelsofcommunicationbetweenEUinstitutionsandEUcitizensbystressingtheirrelevanceforprovidinga“structuredchannelforfeedback,criticismandprotest”andforpromotingdemocracyonthenationallevel.TheCommunicationof2002outlinedhowTSOsareenvisagedtoparticipateintheEuropeanmultilevelgovernancearrangements.Precisely,thecommunicationreferstotheestablishmentof“civicdialogue“towhichprimarilythoseTSOswereeligiblethat“existpermanentlyatCommunitylevel,[...]haveauthoritytorepresentandactatEuropeanlevel[...],havememberorganizationsinmostoftheEUMemberStates[and]providedirectaccesstoitsmember’sexpertise“(COM2002:2.Footnote15).Throughoutthe2000s,theCommissionundertookseriousefforts

14

tofurtherintegraterepresentativesoftheTSOcommunityintoits“consultationregime”(Quittkat/Kohler-Koch2013:47)whichstepbystepmovedintothedirectionofaparticipatoryarrangement.TheCommissioninawayservedasarolemodelforotherEuropeaninstitutions.Inthisvein,theCounciloftheRegionstriedtobecomeamouthpieceofTSOsactiveinBrusselsbyestablishingaformalized“civicdialogue”modelledafterthe“socialdialogue”(Zimmer/Freise2008:32).Insummary,theperiodafterthe“WhitePaperonEuropeanGovernance”wasprimetimeformakingclaimsaboutparticipatorydemocracyinthesensethatfirstandforemosttheCommissionbutalsotheotherEuropeaninstitutionstriedtotouchbasewithTSOsinBrusselsinformalized–dialogues–andinformalways.ResearchfocusedonTSOs’participationintheEuropeangovernancearrangement(Smismans2006)withtheaimofunveilingthepotentialcontributionofTSOs“tothelegitimationofEuropeaninstitutionsandtothedemocratizationoftheEUpolity”(Sanchez-Salgado2014:5f).

ItisworthmentioningthatthisenthusiasticperiodofEUintegrationpolicyinwhichasignificantenlargementoftheEUandtheintroductionoftheEuroalsotookplacewasaccompaniedbymajorEU-fundedresearchprojectsthatspecificallyevaluatedwhetherandtowhatextentTSOsindeedcontributetothereductionoftheso-calleddemocraticdeficitofEuropeanpolicymakingbyprovidingexpertise,givingvoicetootherwiseunheardconstituenciesandfirstandforemostbybringingBrusselsclosertotheEuropeanpeople.TheNetworksofExcellenceCONNEX–ConnectingExcellenceonEuropeanGovernance35andCINEFOGO-CivilSocietyandNewFormsofGovernanceinEurope:theMakingofEuropeanCitizenship–werebothdedicatedtotheanalysisofefficientanddemocraticmultilevelgovernanceinEuropewiththeaimofenhancing“theunderstandingofsocialanddemocraticprocesses,citizenshipanddemocraticparticipationinEurope”.36However,theoutcomesofthesetwomajorresearchendeavourswereratherdisillusioning:ThepotentialofTSOsoperatinginBrusselstokeepintouchwiththeirconstituenciesaswellaswiththeirparentorganizationsathomewerewidelyoverestimated.Theseorganizationstypicallyseemedtohaveinsufficientcapacitytoachievethesortof“transmissionbelt”functionsexpectedoftheminpolicyandresearchcircles,oftenoperatingonrelativelymodestbudgetsandwithunderdevelopedcross-levelinfrastructure.Furthermore,researchuncoveredthatthechorusofTSOsinBrusselsisheavilybiasedwiththeeffectthatTSOsfromsmallercountriesandnewEUmembersweresimplynotpresent(Charrad2010).Henceitwassummarizedthat“the

35http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/fileadmin/flyer/govlit_govdata_final.pdf36http://mighealth.net/eu/images/0/01/Cine1.pdf

15

Europeancivilsocietyis…amagicword,usedprimarilybytheEuropeaninstitutionstolegitimizetheirinstitutionalpositionandpolitics”(Georgakakis2015:234;Zimmer2011;Kohler-Koch/Quittkat2013;SanchezSalgado2014:6).Theresearchalsounveiled“theCommission’sentrepreneurialrole”(Johansson/Kalm2015:7)regardingtheestablishmentofTSOumbrellasinBrussels,manyofthosetheoutcomeoftheCommission’s“remarkablebureaucraticactivism”(Johansson/Kalm2015:8).

3.2.3 DisillusionmentThisbringsustothecurrentphasewhich–asalreadyindicated–couldbecharacterizedasdisillusionmentandpragmatismonbothsides,theformalEUinstitutionsononehand,andBrussels’TSOsandtheirnetworksandplatformsontheother.Certainly,Brussels-basedTSOsexperience“businessasusual”intermsofbeingcontributorstotheEUpolicyprocess.Thisincludesmultipleinvolvementsinroutinizedconsultationproceduresaswellasmoreinformalrelationshipbuilding.

FromtheperspectiveofTSOsusedtobeingconsideredascentralconduitsforenhancingtheEU’sresponsetothedemocraticdeficit,thismorerecentperiodisperceivedasbeingambivalentandfarfromdevelopingintoadirectionthatfurtheradvancestherelevanceofTSOsforBrussels’policyprocess.Thereasonswhydisillusionmentonbothsideshasreplacedenthusiasmaremanifold.AsregardstheEUinstitutions,theirexpectationstowardsTSOswereprobablyunrealisticandthereforefailedtherealitytest.Assummarizedmostrecently,TSOs“areconsideredtoberatherineffective,andfallshortoftheirlegitimizingpotential(SanchezSalgado2014:6).WithaspecialeyeonBrussels’TSOcommunity,previousresearchalready“underscoredthemulti-faceted,institutionallycomplexandcontestedcharacterofthirdsectorEuropeanpolicyasamulti-levelprocess”(Kendall2009b:389).CurrentresearchfurtherdrawstheattentiontoTSOsoperatinginBrusselsthatareconsideredtoconstituteadistinctiveorganizationalfield,inwhichorganizationsco-operateandcoordinateactionbutthatsimultaneouslyisaterrainforconflictandcompetition(Johansson/Kalm2015;Cullen2015).

Whilegovernanceincloseco-operationwithTSOsinBrusselswasinpartinitiallyinspiredbytheconceptsof“participatoryanddeliberativedemocracy”,theCommissionhasalsoturnedto“directdemocracy”inafurtherattempttoreducetheEU’sdemocraticdeficit.InsteadofworkingdirectlywithoratleastconsultingTSOs,the“EuropeanCitizens’Initiative”(ECI)wasintroducedasanewapproachtogetBrusselsclosertotheEuropeanpeople.“TheECIisasingle-causecampaignaimeddirectlyatagendasetting”(Hedling/Meeuwise2015:212).AccordingtoHedling/Meeuwise,theintroductionoftheECIwasanoutcomeoftheConventionfortheFutureoftheUnion(2003-2004).Although

16

theConstitutionalTreatyfailed,theECIwaskeptintheLisbonTreaty(Art.11.4)(Hedling/Meeuwise2015:215).Asachannelformassmobilizationorganizedaroundaspecificlegislativeproposal,theECIdepartsfrompreviousproceduresthatgavepreferencetoformalandinformalconsultationsor“dialogues”withTSOsbasedinBrussels(Greenwood2015:207).

ConceptuallytheECI,inauguratedin2007,aimsatenablingcitizensofthememberstatesoftheEUtoparticipatedirectlyinthepolicyprocessbycallingtheCommissiontoproposealegalact.However,proceduresandlegalrequirementsoftheECIarequitecomplicated.Forstartinganinitiative,acommitteecomprisingatleastsevenmembersfromsevenmemberstateshastobesetupastheresponsiblebodyfordrivingthecase,includingtheconversationwiththeCommission.TheinitiativehastobepostedontheEU-website.Inordertobesuccessful,theinitiativehastobeunderwrittenbyaminimumofonemillionEUcitizensfromatleastsevenmemberstates.Finally,theinitiativealsohastobesupportedbytherespectivememberstates.AsindicatedbyEUresearch,theECIhasnotdevelopedintoanelementoflivelydirectdemocracywhichiswidelyusedbyEuropeancitizens;instead,researchshowsthattheECIhasbecomeafurtherdeviceofTSOsforinfluencingthepolicyprocess(deClerck-Sachsse2012).Hence,theECIbelongstothefamilyofE-governmentinstruments,applaudedbyinternetaficionados,however,muchtoocomplicatedandfromanorganizationalpointofviewfartoosophisticatedinordertobeappliedby“normalcitizens”.Accordingly,theECIisincreasinglyseenas“atoolfororganizedcivilparticipationratherthanasatoolofdirectparticipationbyindividualsbecausesignaturecollectionacrossseveralmemberstatesrequiresprofessionalorganization”(BouzaGarcia2015:176).

AppraisaloftheECIbycurrentEUresearchunderlinesitssupplementaryfunctionasafurtherinstrumentusedprimarilybyTSOstoaccompanylobbyingactivities.InamorerecentcontributionJustinGreeenwoodquotesJorgoRiss,DirectoroftheGreenpeaceEuropeanUnitasfollows:“AnECImaybeausefultoolaspartofacampaignthataimstoraiseawarenessandcreatesomepoliticalmomentumonlesserknownissuesofpublicinterestthatotherwisegetlittlemediaandpoliticalattention.Idonotrateitveryhighly…theoutcomefromanECIdependsonthegoodwilloftheCommission.…Amillioneurospentonlobbyinggetsyoufurtherthanamillionsignatures,regrettably”(JorgoRiss,correspondence,14June2013,quotedinGreenwood2015:203).AlthoughtheECIisnotassessedasbeingawidelyandsuccessfullyusedtoolofagendasettingandparticipatingintheEUpolicyprocess,Greenwood,nevertheless,indicatesthattheECImightpossiblyprovideanopportunityforTSOsinthememberstatesaswellasforsocialmovementsto

17

maketheirvoiceheardandtolaunchaninitiativebybypassingBrussels’professionalizedandfairlyestablishedTSOcommunity(Greenwood2015:202;seealsoBouzaGarcia2015:185f).

AgainstthebackgroundofincreasingcritiqueofbothBrusselspolicymachineryintheaftermathofthefinancialcrisisandtheausteritymeasuresorchestratedbytheCommissionandtheCouncil,socialmovementsandinitiativesatthegrass-rootlevelseemtoregainimportanceasregardsadvocacyinitiativesonbehalfofthethirdsector.AsSimsaarguesconvincingly,althoughnotspecificallyaddressingtheEuropeanlevelofgovernance,therearealmosttwoworldsofrepresentationofthirdsectorrelatedissues:ontheonehandtheso-calledcommunityofprofessionalizedTSOs,andontheotherhandlessformalizedandmorespontaneoussocialgroupsandactivists(Simsa2014).FollowingdeClerck-Sachsse,issue-specificprofessionalizedorganizationsconstitutingtheBrusselsTSOcommunityhavetobedifferentiatedfrombroader-basedcitizeninitiatives.ThesesocialmovementsratherseektomobilizeawidesectionofsocietyinordertovoicetheirconcernsinapublicdebatethantoengagedirectlywithdecisionmakersinBrussels(deClerck-Sachsse2012:302).Indeed,interviewsandfocusgroupsconductedunderwithintheframeworkoftheproject“ThirdSectorImpact”(TSI)underscoretheimpressionthatBrussels’professionalizedTSOcommunityisfarfrombeinghomogeneous,unquestionedandefficientintermsofnotonlybeingconsultedbutalsotakenseriouslybyEUinstitutions.ItisunquestionablethatthereisaTSOcommunityinBrussels(Kendalletal2009:341)qualifyingfor“anorganizationalfield”intermsofbothestablishedcooperativeaswellascompetitiverelationshipsandrelianceonacommonframeworkoflegitimacywhichstillseemstobebasedontheconceptofparticipatoryanddeliberativedemocracy.However,itscurrentrelevancefortheEUpolicyprocessisunclearandneedsfurtherresearch.Our“impressions”fromthefieldwhicharebasedontheresultsofinterviews,focusgroupsandparticipatingobservationsprovidearathersceptical,ifnotpessimisticpictureofsalienceandsignificanceofBrussels’TSOcommunityforissuesandtopicsatstakeofTSOsatthegrassrootslevelinthememberstates.

18

4 ImpressionsfromtheField

4.1 TSOInfrastructure

In2014morethan6,590“societalgroups”runningactivitiesinrelationtoEU-institutionswereregisteredintheEUTransparencyRegister(Johansson/Kalm2015:3).TheseareorganizationsreceivingfundingorseekingtoconsultEUofficialsandinstitutions.Ofthosethelargestgroup(50percent)accordingtoJohanssonandKalmareso-called“in-houselobbyistsandprofessionalassociations”,25percentormorethan1,600arenon-governmentalorganizations.However,itisassumedthatthefieldisevenlargerbecausenoteveryorganizationfilesforregistration.TheTSOcommunityinBrusselsseemstobehighlyfragmented,buttherearetendenciesofconcentrationandcooperationamongTSOswhicharesupportedinparticularfinanciallybytheEuropeanUnion.

JohanssonandKalm(2015:4ff)provideatypologyofTSOsworkinginBrusselbydistinguishingbetweena)individualorganizationsworkingatEU-level,b)platformsofTSOs,andc)mega-networksofTSOs,withdifferentconstituencies,structuresandpatternsofconnectivity.IndividualEU-levelTSOorganizationsarestand-alonerepresentativesofmajorTSOsoperatinginamemberstatesuchastheofficeoftheGermanCaritasinBrussels.37ThiscategoryincludesalsotheBrusselsrepresentationofinternationalTSOssuchasAmnestyInternationalorGreenpeace.However,manyofthesestand-aloneorganizationsarethemselvesumbrellaorganizationswhichquiteoftenwerefoundedwithEU-supportandcontinuetorelyatleastpartlyonEUfunding.TheEuropeanWomen’sLobby(EWL)38isaprominentexampleofsuchaTSOumbrella.Foundedin1990withstrongsupportoftheEU,theEWLisnowpresentinallmemberstatesandservesasakeyconsultanttotheEU.TheEU-levelsingleorganizationsprovidetheirnationalmemberswithinformationaboutEUpolicydevelopmentandtransmitinformationonnationalconditionsupwards.Brussels’TSOplatformsconstituteasecondlayerabovetheindividualTSOrepresentation.PlatformsserveasforumsforindividualTSOsactiveinBrussels,tyingthemtogetherinissue-specificnetworks.AccordingtoJohanssonandKalm,theplatformismostlyEU-fundedandperceivedasaconsultantfortheCommissionandotherEUinstitutionsonanumberofissuesincaseswherethecooperationbetweentheplatformandEUinstitutionsisformalized(JohanssonandKalm

37http://www.caritas.de/diecaritas/deutschercaritasverband/verbandszentrale/standorte/dcvbruesselerbuero.38http://www.womenlobby.org/?lang=en.

19

2015:5).TheSocialPlatformfoundedin1995isagoodexampleforsuchanorganizedforumofformalizedEU-TSOcooperation39(Cullen2009;2010).Servingasaplatformformorethan40TSOsinBrussels,thePlatformexiststhroughEUfunding,coversabroadspectrumofthematicissuesrelatedtothewelfaredomainandisthekeyinterlocutorfortheEuropeanCommission,ParliamentandCouncilonwelfare-relatedtopics.CONCORD,theEuropeanNGOforReliefandDevelopment,foundedin2003,isanotherexample.Itspredecessorthatwasfoundedin1976wasoneofthefirstCSOplatformssupportedbytheEU(JohanssonandKalm2015:5).ThethirdlayerofformalizedEU-TSOcooperationischaracterizedbyJohanssonandKalmas“meta-networks”:“Thesearemechanismsofvariouskindsthatdrawtogetherplatforms(mostly)andevenwiderformsofcooperationanddialogue”(JohanssonandKalm2015:6).Inthiscategory,theauthorslistthe“CivilSocietyContactGroup”,anetworkofeightplatforms,aswellasthe“LiaisonGroup”,aninitiativeoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee(ESC)foundedin2004,inwhich22platformsinteractwiththeESC40.

Previousresearch(Kendalletal.2009)specificallyhighlightedthecomplexfabricofTSOplatformsandspecificallymeta-networks,whoseinfrastructures,putinplacewiththesupportoftheCommission,havedevelopedintorelativelystablearenasfordiscussion,interestaggregationandpresentation.Itwasstressedthatthesenetworksrefertoabroadspectrumoftoolswhichgofarbeyondformalconsultationprocedures.Someofthemmightevenbecharacterizedasvagueandwithoutadejurebasis(Kendalletal.2009:369).ButitwasalsounderscoredthatTSOplatformsandmeta-networksarefarfromhomogenous.Despitetheiraffiliationwithaplatformornetwork,individualTSOsarealwaysconcernedofsafeguardingtheirstandingasindividualactorsinBrussels(Kendalletal.2009:371;Kendall2009a:7f).Butontheotherhand,recentstudiesalsounderlinethatworkingtogetheroncommonissues,elaboratingandpromotingcommonpositionsfacilitatedthedevelopmentofa“collectiveidentity”(Cullen2015:96)amongthelooselycoupledmembersofplatformsandmeta-networksinBrussels.

4.2 BricolageofOpinions

Thefollowingparagraphisbasedontheoutcomeofinterviewsandfocusgroupsconductedin2014and2015inBrussels.WithintheframeworkoftheTSIproject,weinterviewedfiverepresentativesof“individual”TSOsandoneofaTSOplatform.

39http://www.socialplatform.org.40http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.liaison-group.

20

Moreover,fivefocusgroupswereorganizedwithabout40representativesofTSOplatforms,andindividualTSOs(seeinterviewsandfocusgroups).Interviewsandfocusgroupswereaudiotapedandsummarizedinfindingsreports.WetriedtoinviterepresentativesofabroadspectrumofTSOsoperatinginBrussels;however,itturnedoutthatthesampleofourintervieweesandfocusgroupparticipantshadaslightbiastowardsthesocialdomain.Wealsoengagedinparticipatoryobservation.AmemberoftheTSIteamtookpartinselectedevents,relatedtothirdsectorissuesthroughoutFebruary/March2016inBrussels.AgainstthebackgroundofahighlydifferentiatedTSOcommunityencompassingstand-aloneorganizations,platformsandmeta-platforms,aswellasahighrateofvolatilityintermsofissuesandtopicsaddressedinBrussels,thefollowingparagraphdoesnotintendtoprovideacoherentandbalancedpictureofthecurrentstateoftheartofTSOactivitiesattheEuropeanlevel.Instead,ourpurposeistwofold:Firstly,weassesshowrepresentativesoftheTSOcommunityinBrusselsperceivetheirchancesandopportunitiesofinfluencingBrussels’policymachinery,andsecondlywewantedtofindoutmoreabouttheirperceptionsofbarriersthatstandinthewayorhinderTSOsinBrusselsandpossiblyalsointhememberstatesfromthriving.Insummary,theoutcomeoftheinterviewsandfocusgroupsprovidesasketchybutneverthelessinterestingbricolageofopinions.BrusselsisperceivedasbeingacontestedandhighlyvolatileterrainforTSOsengagedinlobbyingactivities;barriersthatimpedethepotentialsofTSOsareprimarilyrelatedtoissuesoffundingandrepresentation.

4.2.1 EU-FundingandModesofFinancingAsoutlined,therollingoutoftheTSOcommunityinBrusselswasmadepossiblebyEUfunding.Stilltoday,EUmoneyisofsignificantimportanceforthemajorityofTSOsactiveinBrussels.AlthoughthesupportoftheCommissionishighlyacknowledged–inparticularbecauseotherwiseatleastsomeTSOplatformswouldeitherbenon-existentornotinapositiontooperatesuccessfully–allinallEU-fundingwasconsideredasbeingamixedblessing.Forsure,throughfundingtheCommissiontriestobalancecorporateandcivilsocietyinterestswithinprocessesofpolicydevelopment,butitalsotentativelyandperhapsunintentionallysetstheagenda(Interview5,p.2;Interview6,p.2).ItwasfurtherindicatedthatrelianceonEUfundingcarriesthepotentialofgettingintoadelicateformofdependency.Inordertosafeguardfunding,itwasmentionedthatthereisasubtletendencythatTSOsshifttheiragendatotopicsandissuesconsideredpoliticallyimportantbytheCommissionortheParliament(Interview3,p.6-9;FocusGroup3,p.6).ItwasnotedthatTSOsinBrusselstendtoengagein“name-andterm-dropping”inordertocomplywithboththeCommission’sagendaandthecurrentEUmachineryculture(Interview4,p.11).

21

CriticizedwerealsothemodesofEU-funding.Proceduresofapplying,implementingandreportingwereseenasbeingverycomplexandtime-consuming.Additionally,delayedapprovalofgrantstranslatesintosignificantfinancialuncertaintiesforTSOs.Althoughfundsweregrantedonafour-yearbasis,TSOssometimeshavetore-applyeveryyear.FinancingmechanismsbothforEU-levelTSOsandforTSOsinthememberstatesareperceivedasbeingtoocomplicatedandfragmented.Accordingtotheinterviewees,TSOsinthememberstatesareconfrontedwithseveredifficultiesinfindingoutwhichfundsareavailable.ButalsoattheEUlevel,fundingapplicationswerebelievedtobetoocomplicated,especiallyforsmallerorganizations.Theobligationofseekingco-fundingwasseenasafurtherbarrier(FocusGroup1,p.11;Interview4,p.10).Sometimes,availablefundscouldnotbeaccessedsimplybecausethereisalackofco-funding(Interview4,p.10;Interview5,p.2).

Austeritymeasureswereanotherprominentissuehighlightedininterviewsandfocusgroups.Oneintervieweeboldlyassertedthattheyarehavinganegativeimpactonboththeformulationandimplementationofsocialandenvironmentalpolicies(Interview6,p.6).Asanotherconsequenceofscarceresources,genuinethirdsectorpolicyconcernsmighthavetobereframedintermsofemployabilityandeconomicgrowthinBrusselsandinthememberstates.Thistrendcanalreadybetracedintheareaofvolunteering.Traditionally,volunteeringwaslinkedtonotionsofinterculturallearninginthesenseofsolidarity,sharedvaluesandEuropeanintegration(Interview4,p.5).Nowadaysitisalsohighlightedeitherasaproxyforgainfulemploymentorasanavenueintothelabourmarket.ItwasunderlinedthatTSOsincreasinglyseethemselvesinapositioninwhichtheymighthavetoprovethatthethirdsectorisaddingvaluetotheconceptofsustainablegrowth,insteadofputtingcivilsocietytopicsonthetopoftheagenda.

4.2.2 AccessibilityandRepresentationAgainstthebackgroundthatBrussels’policymachineryiscomplexwithmanyaccesspointsandshiftingagendas,itwasunderscoredthatworkinginBrusselsisfarfrombeingeasyforTSOs.Asaruleofthumb,workingtogetherinplatformswasreportedtobethemostpromisingapproachtoeffectivelobbyinginBrussels(Interview2,p.3-4).However,opportunitiesforalliancesdifferfrompolicyfieldtopolicyfield(FocusGroup3,p.8;Interview4,p.3;Interview3,p.28).Additionally,TSOs’representativesreportedalackofcoordinationatthepolicylevel.ThisrefersbothtoEUinstitutionsandTSOsself-organization(Interview4,p.1-2).Theformationofallianceswithinthesectorseemstohavebecomemoredifficult.Astentativelyindicatedintheinterviews,thisisduetoanincreasingpolarizationandcompetitionamongTSOs.Furthermore,professionalthink

22

tanksandcommunicationexpertshavestartedtomakeinroadsintoareasforwhichinterestrepresentationusedtobeexclusivelyaffiliatedwithTSOs(FocusGroup2,p.2)

Assomeintervieweesreported,quiteoftenEUofficialssimplydonotunderstandwhatthethirdsectorisandhowTSOswork(FocusGroup1,p.2).Additionally,thehighlyfragmentedEUpolicyterrainmakesitdifficultforTSOstoaddressthe“rightperson”.Thisseemstobeparticularlythecaseforcross-cuttingissueslikevolunteering(Interview4,p.4-6).AshiftofportfoliosbetweentheDGsthattakesplaceonaregularbasisseemstofurthercomplicatelobbyactivitiesforTSOs(Interview4,p.4-5).Referringtoonlineconsultations,focusgroupmembersalsoreportedalackoftransparency:Byandlarge,summariesofpositionswereinmostpartsgeneralizedanddidnotconsiderwhethercontributionsweremadebyindividuals,thinktanksorumbrellaorganizationsrepresentingalargenumberofmembers(Interview3,p.12).Itwasalsounderlinedthatunder“thenewCommission”chairedbyPresidentJuncker,anadditionallevelofhierarchyhasbeeninstalledbystrengtheningtheroleoftheEuropeanCommission’svicepresidentsthatfurtherimpedeseasyaccessofTSOstoBrussels’policymachinery.TSOrepresentativeshighlightedalackoftransparencyandaccessibilityandsuggestedthatTSOsshouldhaveabetterchanceofparticipationinrelevantissues(FocusGroup1,p.4-6).

5 SummaryThepurposeofthisreportistoaddressthetopicofwhetherandtowhatextenttheTSOcommunityinBrusselsmighthelpTSOsinthememberstatestoovercomebarriersandhurdleswhichrestricttheirpotentials.Wespecificallyintendedtoidentifyinitiativescarryingthecapacityofremedyingdisablingfactorsthateitherimpedepan-EuropeanactivitiesofTSOsorthathindertheorganizationsfromlivinguptotheirpotentialsinthememberstates.Linkingupwithpreviousresearch,weintendedtofurtherinvestigatewhethertheEuropeancommunityofTSOsmighthavebeenabletofurtherpositionitselfwithinBrussels’policymachinery.TakingthehistoryanddevelopmentoftheTSOcommunityinBrusselsintoaccount,thisprocessmostlikelywouldhavebeenfacilitatedbytheEUandspecificallybytheCommission.Ourfindingsareprimarilybasedonareviewoftheliterature.In2014/15weconductedinterviewsandfocusgroupswitharespectablenumberofTSOrepresentativesinBrussels.Insummary,ourfindingsrevealacomplexbutnotthoroughlyoptimisticpictureofthecapacitiesofTSOsinBrusselstoworkonbehalfoftheirconstituenciesinthememberstates.

23

Thereportstartedoutwithoutliningthetrajectoriesofthreelegalinitiativeswhichaimedatcreatingpan-Europeanlegalstipulationsforassociations,foundationsandco-operatives.WiththeexceptionoftheStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSocietyneitheroftheotherinitiativesmaterialized.AlthoughitisverydifficulttodetectwhyneitherthestatuteforaEuropeanassociationnorthestatuteofaEuropeanfoundationoraEuropeanmutualsocietyfinallymanagedtoovercomethedifferenthurdlesofBrussels’policymachinery,diverginglegalframeworksinthemembersstatesthatseemedtobedifficulttobeharmonizedturnedouttobedisadvantageousfortheharmonizationofthelegalstipulationsforTSOactivities.

Secondlyagainstthebackgroundoftheresultsofpreviousresearch,thetopicofwhethertheTSOcommunitymighthavegainedfurthermomentumwasassessed.Again,theoutcomebasedprimarilyonareviewoftheliteratureenrichedbybackgroundinformationderivedfrominterviewsandfocusgroupsisratherdisenchanting.Forsure,thereistoamodestextentevidenceforthetentativeemergenceofaTSO“policycommunity”inBrussels.However,itseemstobeoflimitedscopeandinfluence.PartlyfundedbyEUinstitutionsandhencesomehowinapositionofdependencyithasalowprofile,andcertainlydoesnotoccupyaprominentpositioninrelationtothevariousEU-levelpolicydebateswhichimpingedirectlyandindirectlyonTSOs’fortunesatnationalandsubnationallevel.Mostofthe“policyaction”takesplacewithindiscretepolicysubfields,andishandledinspecializedarenas,whichhaveremainedfragmentedandarenoteasilyaccessibleforTSOs.TherearegoodreasonstoarguethattheTSOcommunityinBrusselshasnotconnectedorganizationsinamoreaggregatedformtocomparewiththeinstitutionsofhorizontalorganizationdevelopedinrelationtomorepowerfulsectoralinterests,suchasthoseinsupportofthecorporatebusinesscommunity.Indeed,thereissomeevidencethatcomparedtothepreviousdecade,Brussels’TSOcommunitymayevenhaveweakenedinrecentyears,andlostconnectivitywiththirdsectorpolicyagendasatmemberstatelevels.

JudgedretrospectivelyitseemsthattheimpactoftheTSOcommunityonthirdsectorissuesinthememberstateshasdefinitelybeenrathermodest.ThereareacoupleofreasonswhythisisthecaseandwhytheimpactofTSOengagementinBrusselsturnsouttoberatherlimitedorevenminiscule.Firstly,TSOsareactiveinpolicydomainswhichareguidedbytheprincipleofsubsidiarityandthereforearenotundertheauspicesofEUregulations.Secondly,TSOactivityisatleasttoacertainextentrelatedtotopicsandissuesofsocietalintegration,citizenparticipationandactivismwhichagaindonotconstitutekeyconcernsoftheEuropeanpolicymachinery.Thismightbeacentralreason

24

whyintheaftermathoftheProdiCommissionanditsappreciationofparticipatorymultilevelgovernance,EUinstitutionsmighthavetoacertainextentlostinterestintryingtointegrateTSOsfurtherintoBrussels’policymachinery.Inasituationinwhichtheeconomycomesfirst,TSO-relatedissuesmightexclusivelyhaveachancetobetakenintoconsiderationifthereisacloseliaisonwitheconomicallyrelevanttopics.TheclosenexustoeconomicissuesmighthavefacilitatedtheacceptanceoftheStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety.

Finally,therearealsoinequalitieswithintheTSOcommunity.ThosewhoarebigplayersinthememberstatesareverypresentandinfluentialinBrussels.TSOsfromEasternEuropeandalsofromtheSoutharenotasequallyrepresentedasthosecomingfromthe“bigmemberstates”,theUK,GermanyorFrance.Thismeansthat“newcomers”aswellasrepresentativesfromsocialmovementsarehavingadifficulttimeinBrusselswhentheytrytomakethemselvesheard.TheintroductionoftheEuropeanCitizenInitiativehasnotfundamentallychangedthebiasofrepresentationinBrussels.Finally,againstabackgroundofanEUcontinuouslyconfrontedwithsignificantfinancialandpoliticalturbulencesinthememberstates,theCouncilofMinistershasmovedoncemoreintothecentreofattention.Indeed,theEuropeanCouncilastheforumoftheheadsofgovernmentofthememberstateshasagaindevelopedintothemostdecisive,powerfulanddetermininginstitutionoftheEU.ThishoweverleadstoasituationinwhichBrussels’TSOcommunityislesspowerfulbecausewhathappensathomeinthememberstatesmightpossiblybemoreeffectivethantheoutcomeofadvocacyactivitiesinBrussels.

WethereforetendtoconcludethatBrussels’TSOsjustserveausefulfunctionforBrussels’policymachinebyprovidingexpertiseandalsolegitimacyforselectedpolicies,initiatedbytheCommissionandfavouredbyothersectoralinterests.However,theyseemtobefarfromapositionofbeingabletosignificantlyinfluencetheagendaorevenaddressingmajorTSO-relatedtopics.Furthermore,italsoseemsthattheyarenotveryinfluentialwithrespecttothosetopicsandissuesthatarehighontheagendaofthevariousTSOcommunitiesinthememberstates.

25

ReferencesAMICE/AIM(2008):EuropeanMutualSociety.AMICE/AIMDraftRegulation2007.ExplanatoryMemorandum.July2008.http://www.amice-eu.org/userfiles/file/AIM-AMICE_Explanatory_Memo_EMS_final_reformatted.pdf(lastaccessed:03/07/2016).

BouzaGarcia,Luis(2015):TheEffectoftheEuropeanCitizens´InitiativeintheFieldofEuropeanCivilSociety,in:Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.)(2015):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan:175-192.

Charrad,Kristina(2010):ParticipantsorObserversinEuropeanGovernance?CivilSocietyLobbyistsfromCentralandEasternEuropeinBrussels,Baden-Baden:NomosVerlag.

Charrad,Kristina(2014):WhyistherenostatuteforaEuropeanAssociation?In:Freise,Matthias/Hallmann,Thorsten:ModernizingDemocracy.AssociationsandAssociatinginthe21stcentury,NewYork:Springer:193-200.

Cullen,Pauline(2009):PanEuropeanNGOsandSocialRights:ParticipatoryDemocracyandCivilDialogue,in:Joachim,Jutta/Locher,Birgit(Eds.):TransnationalActivismintheUNandEU:AComparativeStudy,NewYork:Routledge:140-153.

Cullen,Pauline(2010):ThePlatformofEuropeanSocialNGOs:Ideology,DivisionandCoalition,in:JournalofPoliticalIdeologies,15(3):317-331.

Cullen,Pauline(2015):FromCoalitiontoCommunity:CollectiveIdentityFormationintheSocialPlatform,in:Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan:81-97.

DeClerck-Sachsse,Julia(2012):CivilSocietyandDemocracyintheEU:TheParadoxoftheEuropeanCitizens´Initiative,in:PerspectivesonEuropeanPolitics&Society.09/2012,Vol.13,Issue3:299-311.

Delors,Jacques(2004):TheEuropeanUnionandthethirdsector,in:Evers,Adalbert/Laville,Jean-Pierre(Eds):TheThirdSectorinEurope,Cheltenham:EdwardElgar:206-215.

Evers,Adalbert/Zimmer,Annette(Eds.)(2010):ThirdSectorOrganizationsFacingTurbulentEnvironments:Sports,CultureandSocialServicesinFiveEuropeanCountries,Baden-Baden:Nomos.

Georgakakis,Didier(2015):FieldswithinFields?ConcludingRemarksontheRelationshipsbetweentheEuropeanCivilSocietyandtheEUBureaucraticFields,in:Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan:229-242.

26

Greenwood,Justin(2015):CivilDialogueandtheCitizen´sInitiative:AccountingforCollaborationandCompetitionUsingtheAdvocacyCoalitionFrameworkandtheStrategicActionField,in:Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.)(2015):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan:193-209.

Hefling,Elsa/Meuwisse,Anna(2015):TheEuropeanCitizens´InitiativeStage:ASnapshotoftheCastandTheirActs,in:Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.)(2015):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan:209-228.

Heuberger,Frank(2015):IsBrusselslost?TheEuropeanCivilSociety´sstruggletomakethecitizen´svoiceheard,in:Embacher,Serge/Lang,Susanne(Eds.):RechtaufEngagement.PlädoyerfürdieBürgergesellschaft,Bonn:DietzVerlag:121-132.

Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(2015):ThinkingRelationality:Questions,ThemesandPerspectivesfortheStudyofEUCivilSociety,in:Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan:1-20.

Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.)(2015):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan.

Kendall,Jeremy/Fraisse,Laurent(2009):TheEuropeanStatuteofAssociation:whystillanobscurebutcontestedsymbolinaseaofindifferenceandskepticism?,in:Kendall,Jeremy(Ed.):HandbookonThirdSectorPolicyinEurope.Multi-levelProcessesandOrganizedCivilSociety,Cheltenham:EdgarElgar:209-227.

Kendall,Jeremy/Will,Cathrine/Brandsen,Taco(2009):ThethirdsectorandtheBrusselsdimension:Trans-EUgovernanceworkinprogress,in:Kendall,Jeremy(Ed.):HandbookonThirdSectorPolicyinEurope.Multi-levelProcessesandOrganizedCivilSociety,Cheltenham:EdgarElgar:341-381.

Kendall,Jeremy(2009b):Concludingobservations:adiversandevolvingthirdsectorpolicylandscape,in:Kendall,Jeremy(Ed.):HandbookonThirdSectorPolicyinEurope.Multi-levelProcessesandOrganizedCivilSociety,Cheltenham:EdgarElgar:382-390.

Kendall,Jeremy(2009a):Terraincognita:thirdsectorsandEuropeanpolicyprocesses,Kendall,Jeremy(Ed.):HandbookonThirdSectorPolicyinEurope.Multi-levelProcessesandOrganizedCivilSociety,Cheltenham:EdgarElgar:3-19.

Kohler-Koch,Beate/Quittkat,Christine(Eds.)(2013):De-MystificationofParticipatoryDemocracy:EU-GovernanceandCivilSociety,Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press.

27

Naurin,David(2015):ThecouncilsoftheEU:intergovernmentalbargaininginasupranationalpolity.In:Richardson,Jeremy/Mazey,Sonia(eds.):EuropeanUnion.Powerandpolicymaking.Fourthedition,London/NewYork:Routledge,pp.135-158.

Quittkat,Christine/Kohler-Koch,Beate(2013):InvolvingcivilsocietyinEUgovernance,in:Kohler-Koch,Beate/Quittkat,Christine(Eds.):De-MystificationofParticipatoryDemocracy:EU-GovernanceandCivilSociety,Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press:41-61.

Ranci,Constanzo/Montagnini,Eugenia,2010:TheImpactoftheCommodificationofSocialCareontheRoleandIdentityoftheThirdSectorinItaly,in:Evers,Adalbert/Zimmer,Annette(Eds.):ThirdSectorOrganizationsFacingTurbulentEnvironments,Baden-Baden:Nomos:107-123.

Ruzza,Carlo(2015):ChangesintheFieldofEUCivilSocietyOrganisations:Institutionalisation,DifferentiationandChallenges,in:Johansson,Hakan/Kalm,Sara(Eds.):EUCivilSociety:PatternofCooperation,CompetitionandConflict,Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan:23-42.

Sanchez-Salgado,Rosa(2014):EuropeanizingCivilSociety.HowtheEUShapesCivilSocietyOrganizations,Houndsmill:Palgrave/Macmillan.

Schröder,Carolin/Walk,Heike(2014):GenossenschaftenundKlimaschutz,Wiesbaden:SpingerVS.

Simsa,Ruth(2014):“Driftingapart?”UnterschiedlicheHandlungslogikenvonformalisiertenundnichtformalisiertenzivilgesellschaftlichenAkteuren,in:Zimmer,Annette/Simsa,Ruth(Eds.):ForschungzuZivilgesellschaft,NPOsundEngagement.Quovadis?,Wiesbaden:SpringerVS:181-195.

Simsa,Ruth/Rauscher,Olivia/Schober,Christian/Moder,Clara(2014):MethodologicalGuidlineforImpactAssessment,Vienna:http://thirdsectorimpact.eu/the-project/working-areas/impact/?content_page=3

Smismans,Stijn(2006):CivilSocietyandLegitimateEuropeanGovernance,Cheltenham:EdwardElgar

Zimmer,Annette/Appel,Anja/Dittrich,Claudia/Lange,Chris/Sitterman,Birgit/Stallmann,Freia/Kendall,Jeremy,2009:Chapter2Germany:OnthesocialpolicycentralityoftheFreeWelfareAssociations,in:Kendall,Jeremy(Ed.):HandbookonThirdSectorPolicyinEurope:Multi-LevelProcessesandOrganisedCivilSociety,Aldershot:EdwardElgar:21-42.

Zimmer,Annette(2011):ThereisnoBusinesslikeShowBusiness:GovernanceRevisited,in:Boje,ThomasP./Potucek,Martin(Eds.):SocialRights,ActiveCitizenship,andGovernanceintheEuropeanUnion,Baden-Baden:Nomos,S.133-143

28

Zimmer,Annette/Freise,Matthias(2008):BringingSocietyBackin!,in:Maloney,WilliamA./vanDeth,Jan(Eds.):CivilSocietyandGovernanceinEurope,London:EdwardElgar:19-42.

EUSourcesCommiteeofRegions,StellungnahmedesAusschussesderRegionen“Binnenmarktakte”,31.3./1.42011:http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/edz/doku/adr/2010/cdr-2010-0330-de.pdf

CommiteeoftheRegions,OpinionoftheCommitteeoftheRegionson‘TheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,11.2012:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52012AR1364

EASEA,Historicalbackground:Thetroublesomeprogressionofthestatuteproject,©EASEA2010-Lastupdate:1/12/10:http://www.easea.eu/pages/History.html

EuropeanCommission,Associationsandfoundations,05.02.2013:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/associations-foundations/index_en.htm

EuropeanCommission,CommissionStaffWorkingPaper:OverviewofresponsestothepublicconsultationontheCommunication‘TowardsaSingleMarketAct’AccompanyingdocumenttotheCommunicationfromtheCommission,13.4.2011:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011SC0467&from=EN–EuropeanCommission2011B

EuropeanCommission,ConsultationonaPossibleStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,16.2.2009:http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2009/foundation/consultation_doc_en.pdf–EuropeanCommission2009A

EuropeanCommission,EUR-Lex:CouncilRegulation(EC)No1435/2003of22July2003ontheStatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety(SCE),2003:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003R143525.06.2015–EuropeanCommission2003A

EuropeanCommission,ProposalforaCouncilRegulationontheStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation(FE),8.2.2012:http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/eufoundation/proposal_en.pdf–EuropeanCommission2012A

EuropeanCommission,SummariesofEUlegislation:StatuteforaEuropeanCooperativeSociety,2011:http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/social_dialogue/l26018_en.htm#keyLastupdated:20.01.2011–EuropeanCommission2011A

29

EuropeanCommission,WithdrawalofCommissionProposals,7.3.2015:http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52015XC0307%2802%29–EuropeanCommission2015B

EuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee,StellungnahmedesEuropäischenWirtschafts-undSozialausschusseszumThema“SatzungderEuropäischenStiftung”,28.4.2010:http://www.uni-mannheim.de/edz/doku/wsa/2010/ces-2010-0634-de.pdf

EuropeanParliament,EuropeanParliamentresolutiononrecentdevelopmentsandprospectsinrelationtocompanylaw,4.7.2006:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0295+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

EuropeanParliament,EuropeanParliamentresolutiononSocialEconomy,19.2.2009:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0062+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

HouseofCommons,4AStatuteforaEuropeanFoundation,11.2.2015:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeuleg/219xxxii/21907.htm

UniversitätHeidelberg;MaxPlankInstitut,FeasibilityStudyonaEuropeanFoundationStatute,2008:http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/eufoundation/feasibilitystudy_en.pdf

InterviewsandFocusGroupsInterview1:Representativeofinstitutionalcontactgroup,Brussels,

Interview2:RepresentativeofindividualEUlevelTSO,Brussels,

Interview3:RepresentativeofindividualEUlevelTSO,Brussels,21.10.2014

Interview4:RepresentativeofindividualEUlevelTSO,Brussels,23.09.2014

Interview5:RepresentativeofindividualEUlevelTSO,Brussels,21.10.2014

Interview6:RepresentativeofEUlevelTSOplatform,Brussels,26.09.2014

FocusGroup1:“BarriersandOpportunitiesforTSOsattheEuropeanlevelofgovernance”,14representativesofindividualEUlevelTSOsandEUlevelTSOplatforms,Brussels,15.10.2014

30

FocusGroup2:“ThirdSectorPolicyParticipation:FragmentationorConsolidation.VerticalandHorizontalInteraction”,6representativesofindividualEUlevelTSOs,Brussels,13.10.2015

FocusGroup3:“ThirdSectorPolicyParticipation:FragmentationorConsolidation.VerticalandHorizontalInteraction”,6representativesofindividualEUlevelTSOs,Brussels,13.10.2015

FocusGroup4:“ThirdSectorPolicyParticipation:FragmentationorConsolidation.InterestRepresentation”,9representativesofindividualEUlevelTSOsandEUlevelTSOplatforms,Brussels,13.10.2015

FocusGroup5:“ThirdSectorPolicyParticipation:FragmentationorConsolidation.InterestRepresentation”,5representativesofindividualEUlevelTSOs,Brussels,13.10.2015

31

Attachment:ExemplarypresentationofTSOplatforms

PolicyField“SocialServices”

SocialPlatform–PlatformofEuropeanSocialNGOs

ContactDetails

SquaredeMeeus181050Brussels+3225113714http://www.socialplatform.org

platform@socialplatform.org

Formation 1995CEO PierreBaussandPolicyArea/Objectives

Inclusion,Employment,SocialJusticeRights,Services,CivildialogueKeepingsocialexclusionontheEUagendaSeekingtoprotectsocialaspects’inOMCLeadingthroughacombinationofpoliticalandtechnicalstatetoprotectsocialpolicyfieldsagainstmarketbasedactors

Members 48membersthatrepresent2800nationalorganisations,associationsandothervoluntarygroupsatlocal,regionalandnationallevelineveryEUmemberstate,includingorganisationsofwomen,olderpeople,peoplewithdisabilities,peopleaffectedbypoverty,youngpeople,childrenandfamilies,gaysandlesbiansandtransgenders.Memberorganisationsalsoincludethosecampaigningonissuessuchassocialjustice,homelessness,life-longlearning,healthandreproductiverightsorracism.

Finances 2014Income:712.487,01€2014Expenditure:701.318,09€

Concord-EuropeanconfiderationofreliefanddevelopementNGOsContactDetails

Ruedel´Industrie101000Brussels+3227438760http://www.concordeurope.org/

seamus.jeffreson@concordeurope.org

Formation 2003CEO SeamusJeffressonPolicyArea/Objectives

Development:Endingofpovertyandinequality,basedonsocialjustice,genderequalityanduponresponsibilitytofuturegenerations

Members 28nationalassociations,20internationalnetworksand3associatemembersthatrepresentover2,600NGOs

Finances 2014Income:1.610.000€

32

2014Expenditure:1.570.860€ EWL-EuropeanWomen'sLobbyContactDetails

RueHydraulique1210Brussels+3222179020http://www.womenlobby.org/

Joanna.Maycock@womenlobby.org

Formation 1990CEO JoannaMaycockPolicyArea/Objectives

Women’srights

Members NationalCo-ordinationsinthe28EUmemberstatesand3candidatecountries;20European-wideorganisations.

EAPN-EuropeanAnti-PovertyNetworkContactDetails

SquaredeMeeûs181050Brussels+32(2)2265850http://www.eapn.eu

fintan.farrell@eapn.eu

Formation 1990CEO FintanFarrell

ActingEAPNDirectorPolicyArea/Objectives

Povertypromoteandenhancetheeffectivenessofactionstoeradicatepovertyandpreventsocialexclusion;raiseawarenessaroundpovertyandsocialexclusionempowerthepeoplelivinginpovertyandsocialexclusionlobbyforandwithpeopleandgroupsfacingpovertyandsocialexclusion.

Members 31nationalnetworksofvoluntaryorganisationsandgrassrootsgroupsactiveinthefightagainstpovertywithintheMemberStatesoftheEUandNorway,andWesternBalkans,andofEuropeanorganisationswhosemainactivitiesarerelatedtothefightagainstpovertyandsocialexclusion.

33

PolicyField“Sports”

ENGSO–EuropeanNon-GovernmentalSportOrganisationContactDetails

AvenuedeCortenbergh521000Brussels+3227380325http://www.engso.com

pekkola@euoffice.eurolympic.org

Formation 1960s(1995formalizedwithofficialstatutes)Contact HeidiPekkola

SportsPolicyDirectorPolicyArea/Objectives

Voiceofgrassroots/voluntarysports

Members 34members(nationalOlympiccomiteesfrom34europeancountries)NationalConfederationsofSportNationalOlympicCommitteesEuropeanSportFederationsEuropeanorganisationsrelatedtosport

EOC–EuropeanOlympicComitteesContactDetails

BureaudesCOEauprèsdel´UE52,AvenuedeCortenbergh1000Brussels+32–2–7380320http://www.eurolympic.orghttp://www.euoffice.eurolympic.org/secretariat@eurolympic.org

CEO RaffaelePagnozziSecreataryGeneral

PolicyArea/Objectives

OlympicSports

Members 48NationalOlympicCommitteesacrossEurope